Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Dreadfully unsourced and I suspect pretty inaccurate. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of the word genocide to describe inter-tribal conflict[edit]

Hi friends, this is my first time on this WikiProject. I’m working on the Chief Seattle page and an editor is citing a source that describes a war between the Suquamish and the Chimakum as genocide because many Chimakum were killed and the ones left were forced to integrate into other tribes. Although the Chimakum were later signatories at the Point No Point Treaty.

Personally I think this is quite a stretch of the word genocide. I think the role of it’s inclusion is less to spread awareness about genocide and more to further a colonizer narrative that demonizes indigenous peoples as “savages.”

As a new Wikipedian, I’m wondering if you all have any advice about how to go about this situation. t̕igʷicid AdJHu • 胡安祝 12:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this qualifies as an exceptional claim with a contentious label, a non-expert source, and a dead link, so I went ahead and removed it.      — Freoh 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the contentious category since the content was removed. Without the content the category does not apply. --ARoseWolf 14:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comment on a relevant article to this WikiProject[edit]

Please see Talk:Kaktovik_numerals#Displaying_the_characters_in_the_article for issues related to display of characters and accessibility. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 11:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous-Language Names[edit]

What are the rules/guidelines for adding Indigenous-language names to modern settlements, landmarks, islands, etc. I am a speaker of Lushootseed, and have been attempting to add the language to appropriate pages. I've tried to add names to modern cities in the opening line (ie, [city name] (Lushootseed: [lushootseed name] is a city...) but they keep getting reverted on the basis that the word is a name for the old settlement there that no longer exists. However this is a misunderstanding of how names apply to places and settlements. Place names are a reference to the former village but they are also the word for the land, that people have used since time immemorial, regardless of what settlement is there. Especially, as tradtionally, Lushootseed-speaking peoples were semi-migratory, many of these places would be abandoned and rebuilt each cycle. More importantly, in the modern times, these words are used to refer to the places that have been permanently settled as well. Should they be included in the opening line? What about mountains, rivers, bodies of water, geographical features, etc? PersusjCP (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue is no different than listing older names for places in Europe, for example, Lviv, Ukraine, which has been Lvov, Lwów, Lemberg, etc. over the course of its history. We do not clutter the first sentence of the lead to placenames with the history of what that place has been called over time. I agree with you that the name of the place where the Anglo city now stands in whatever native language would be appropriate, but not in the first sentence. The solution for many places in Ukraine, for example, is to create a section near the beginning of the article called "Name" and including the historical forms there. Odesa is one example where the Ukrainian, Russian, and Yiddish forms of the name are included. The one thing that we do not do is place a clearinghouse for what that place is called in any language in the world, so that the Swahili form for Kyiv (if there is a separate variation of either "Kyiv" or "Kiev") would not be appropriate. But the addition of the Lushootseed name in the first sentence for the place where Seattle now stands, for example, is not appropriate because it is not in common use in English (which is the rule that we try to use for placenames around the world since this is the English Wikipedia), but it absolutely belongs in a section called "Name" as long as it is clear that the name refers historically not to the city, but to the land that the city sits on. The city is more than just the land that it occupies, although I appreciate the subtle differences between what Natives believe about the land and what Anglos believe about the land. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that makes some sense to me. Why though, does Lviv, for example, have native Ukranian, Russian, Polish, German, and Yiddish names in the opener? Wouldn't that also apply to those articles? Galicia has Galician, Spanish, and Portugese, Alexandria has Egyptian Arabic and Greek, Rennes has Breton, Gallo, and even Latin. Why do those include them in the opener but not for this? I assume then, for natural formations of the land, having it in the opening sentence would be appropriate. PersusjCP (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because there are thousands of articles that cover placenames in Wikipedia, but not thousands of editors who understand how MOS:LEADLANG works. You can read the discussion at Talk:Odesa to see how the issue works in a real-world example. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Lviv as I recall. Ukrainian cities are probably the best examples right now because they've all undergone a recent renaming from Russian-based spellings to Ukrainian-based spellings. The basic reasoning is that the first sentence of any article should be simple and straightforward to introduce the subject. Details can then follow in subsequent sections. Filling that first sentence with multiple names, pronunciations, and language labels for each of the names is a reader's nightmare. I would like to see more Native American language representation in Wikipedia, but it needs to be done so that the primary function of the first sentence of the article isn't violated by language clutter. A "Name" section is the best way to do that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to Lviv. I had fixed that first sentence and created the Name section a couple of months ago, but I see now that someone who doesn't know anything about WP:LEADLANG messed it up again and I didn't notice on my watchlist. I have fixed it again. That's a problem sometimes with Wikipedia. Odesa is still good though. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The style guide says though, that there should be foreign language names if it has to do with the article at hand...
If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent:
Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivetska oblast) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.
Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Relevant foreign-language names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged. PersusjCP (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is right, but Mount Rainier isn't "closely associated with a non-English language". That exception is for placenames in non-English-speaking countries. The last time I checked, Mount Rainier is located in an English-speaking country. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take Death Valley as an example. The Native name for the valley is tɨmpisa, anglicized as Timbisha. (The ü is the Timbisha orthographic symbol for IPA ɨ.) The Timbisha is found in the History section in this article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be majority English-speaking, but English is a foreign language here :) PersusjCP (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Touché. BTW, if you know any Shoshoni or Comanche, you'll recognize my user name ;) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the initial problem, the trouble is that a lot of editors will see the adding of Indigenous names to articles as a primarily political statement since Indigenous populations are seen as "too small" to be "relevant" or "significant". The thing is, they're half right. For believers in Indigenous sovereignty such as ourselves, making Indigenous history visible in a context where it has been rendered invisible is an act with political implications, not least because Indigenous invisibility has many benefits for a settler state (not to imply that Wikipedians are devious agents of empire, mind you). This puts us in a bind when arguing policy, because Wikipedia prioritizes relevance to the mainstream (which is now thoroughly settler-dominated) over moral standpoints like foregrounding Indigeneity (which the mainstream does not consider terribly relevant). Long story short, I've kind of accepted that the fight for the first line is not really one likely to bear rewards. A good workaround, I think, is in the later portions of the introduction which often summarize a place's history. Something along the lines of "X City was built on/near the Y people's site of Z". Since Indigenous history incontrovertibly dominates the majority of any place's human history and there are continuous ties between ancient and modern peoples, I don't really see how that could be objected to. The Vancouver page seems to do a good pretty job of this, albeit without mentioning the place-name. The only complication at that point is if the "modern" site overlaps with numerous place-names in one or more languages. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good summary. It is really frustrating, especially to those, for whom Indigenous sovereignty is a deeply personal issue, like myself, to see it constantly get brushed over when it comes to the mainstream historical community. What you mentioned, leaving it out of the beginning but working it into the intro in another way is a good workaround. I guess the next thing is just wait until it becomes more mainstream and it works its way into the style guide. Funny name by the way PersusjCP (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, add the Lushootseed to the lede section but not the first sentence. If you can xite it, you're golden. Yuchitown (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
I usually just include in the article body information about the Indigenous history prior to foreign settlement or whatnot, and then it can be included in the lead as the lead is suppose to summarize the article.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have all of you added this WikiProject's article alerts to your watchlist? I find them useful to be alerted to PRODs and deletion discussions. Yuchitown (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Could use some more eyes[edit]

Over at Talk:Elizabeth Warren and Elizabeth Warren especially involving misconceptions around DNA. - CorbieVreccan 19:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a potential sensitive issue involving an edit someone made to this talk page in 2021. Given recent news about Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse, the edit seems especially unsettling and I believe it may be worth notifying law enforcement or tribal officials about it. See my comment left on the talk page for more info. I’m not sure what Wikipedia’s standard policy is for situations like this (or even if such a situation has ever happened in the past), so I thought I’d ask about it here. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SUPPRESS likely applies. That it hasn't already occurred speaks to the project's issues with attempting to be a popularity contest. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I revdel'd the edit, and I see it has now been oversighted, and I sent a message to WMF Trust&Safety. I'm not sure what the "popularity contest" comment means, but I assume it wasn't previously removed because no one brought it to anyone's attention. For the future, I know the fact that I saw it here first somewhat defeats my point, but it's far better to email the Oversight Team, or WMF's T&S directly, rather than publicize it on-wiki. See WP:EMERGENCY. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for taking care of it. I'm surprised I missed it, as I have the article on my watchlist. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. - CorbieVreccan 22:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're in the news[edit]

Almost forgot why I was on this page in the first place. If people didn't know already, there's an interesting article in Slate today that directly impacts your Wikiproject. See "How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History" by Kyle Keeler. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read that this morning. After reading it, I began thinking about making a page in the same vein as LGBT and Wikipedia but it would be titled something like Indigenous people and Wikipedia (or a better title), since there are articles on the same topic in Smithsonian magazine, Active History, Initiative for Indigenous Futures, Washington Post, Wikimedia Foundation, and there's probably more. Historyday01 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just read the Keeler piece. If Slate were truly concerned about lack of Indigenous representation, they would have hired a Native writer. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
I mean, reading his Slate bio, I understand why he wrote this article (as it seems to be in his subject area), but it would surely have been better if a Native writer focused on this topic instead. I seriously doubt Slate has a Native writer on staff. Historyday01 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To your suggestion of creating a page compiling all these links, that would be interesting. It could be global in scope or only Indigenous peoples of North America. Yuchitown (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitwonReply[reply]
doesn't change the fact that the article addresses a real problem but yes. PersusjCP (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there are a lot of issues on Wikipedia but I also think there are a lot of issues with that article, which I find beautifully written. I have been involved in all of the discussions mentioned. Wikipedia is not a place for activism. If we truly want to change the direction of society with regards to Indigenous topics then trying to do so by starting with the encyclopedia is the wrong way to go about it. We need to highlight more writings from Indigenous scholarship. We need more Indigenous scholarship. We need more good sources to draw from. Not with the intention of changing Wikipedia but the intention of education. Then, by way of said education outside Wikipedia and due to the fact there will be more sources to draw from, Wikipedia will change because it follows reliable sourcing. Writing articles saying "Bad Wikipedia" doesn't really change much in the long run of things. It has taken months of discussion on the Andrew Jackson and Trail of Tears talk page's to get real and effective change. The article's still aren't perfect. We may never get perfect, but it is changing as reliable Indigenous sources are presented which offer a different perspective and as fellow editors are engaging in those conversations with the intent to collaborate rather than force change. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could use some input. Haven't formally listed it, as I'm not sure it's controversial. Will do so if that seems best. - CorbieVreccan 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, yeah. This just got created. Would appreciate eyes and input. - CorbieVreccan 21:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a swift deletion. I'm glad. --ARoseWolf 17:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attack at AN on some indigenous editors[edit]

[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spam, Vandalism and Bullying By Native Tribes].

Doug Weller talk 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Métis issues[edit]

Would appreciate some knowledgeable input at Talk:Mattawa, Ontario#Why are we not explaining the Metis situation?. Especially an evaluation of this source in terms of Métis material/issues:

  • Lawrence, B. (2012). Fractured Homeland: Federal Recognition and Algonquin Identity in Ontario. UBC Press. ISBN 978-0-7748-2287-9. Retrieved 2023-02-12.

- CorbieVreccan 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming discussion for multiple tribes[edit]

There is a discussion here concerning renaming the categories for the Cherokee, Seminole, Kickapoo, Wampanoag, Shawnee, and Blackfoot peoples. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion discussion for Category:American writers of Native American descent[edit]

There is a deletion discussion here for the category Category:American writers of Native American descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pima / Akimel O'odham renaming discussion[edit]

There is a renaming discussion for the Pima / Pima people categories here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming categories discussion[edit]

There is a discussion for renaming categories to drop "tribe" from the category title here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dropping "tribe" from last few category names, other issues[edit]

Asking for advice from project members. There are a handful of categories remaining that still have "tribe" in the title, but I wasn't quite sure what to rename them. The categories for Category:Miami tribe, Category:Wichita tribe, Category:Iowa tribe, and Category:Peoria tribe cannot drop "tribe" because they are also state and city names. Perhaps a naming pattern such as Category:Miami (people), Category:Iowa (people), etc.? In the cases where there is only a single recognized tribe - such as Category:Mohave tribe, Category:Kaw tribe, and Category:Crow tribe - should "tribe" simply be dropped or should the title be changed to the official name of the nation (e.g., Category:Crow Tribe of Indians or simply Category:Crow, Category:Kaw Nation or simply Category:Kaw, etc)? Aside from those issues, the category for Category:Omaha (Native American) people is inelegant and I can't create a separate Category:Omaha people category for individual Omaha people because that's a disambiguation category. The solution for this issue in the case of the Category:Squamish people is the ugly Category:Squamish people (individuals). Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely prefer the formatting like Omaha people as one would see many such ethnic/affiliated group categories on Wikipedia. I don't suppose there's any way to get the geographic city resident ones to be renamed to allow for it? Probably not right? Dan Carkner (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those, just leave them the same. Adding parenthesis just makes it less intuitive and more difficult to type. People is usually reserved for categories of articles about individuals so adds an extra layer of confusion, and (people) isn't an improvement over tribe in regards to these being umbrella categories that include articles about language, culture, history, etc. Yuchitown (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood, I thought we were talking about categories that contain individuals. Serves me right for responding before drinking my coffee. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like almost unrecognized organizational articles, Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania has attracted two wp:single-purpose accounts. I've issued wp:COI warnings on their talk pages, but those seem to achieve nothing. I flagged the article for COI edits. If the attempts to insert promotional links and content continue, I'll try using the COI noticeboard. In the meantime, any extra assistance in seeking a fact-based, NPOV article would be greatly appreciated. Yuchitown (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Because this situation is so common, I'm trying to develop best practices to deal with it. Yuchitown (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Looking into it. If people clearly have COI, I flag the talk page as well. If the accounts are disruptive I'll block and/or semi. I've just clarified policy to one of the new users.
I agree, this is typical on these articles. I'll think on what to do as I agree it's a chronic problem. - CorbieVreccan 23:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the self-referential edits and usernames, the COI is clear. Flagging talk. - CorbieVreccan 23:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I was not familiar with the Template:Connected contributor. I've been reading around for models of how Wikipedia deals with other subjects where the published claims are not backed up by facts. WP:PROFRINGE is helpful. Fortunately, in the case of Delaware people, the Delaware Nation is taking action, like the Cherokee and Shawnee have had to do. Yuchitown (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Terminology on Seminole Tribe of Florida Page[edit]

Hello all, I did pose this question on the talk page for the article itself, Seminole Tribe of Florida, but I wasn't sure how much exposure it'd get there so I wanted to drop the question here as well: The term "full bloods" is used in the article and I am unsure if this is accepted terminology or outdated? To be honest, even if it is outdated, I couldn't think of a good synonym for Seminole members who were fully "genetically" Seminole. Thanks! Amscheip (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full-bloods is still used by Native American people. For questions like this, you can refer to recent published literature while paying attention to context and authors. Full-blood has a hyphen, even as a noun, as per Merriam-Webster. I'm more concerned about the term half-breed, since that is derogatory, while full-blood is typically a term of respect. BTW full-blood is almost never literal (someone might be of 100% Native ancestry but rarely 100% a single tribal group unless one considers captives to be adopted and becoming 100% that group). In regards to Seminoles, it can't be, since they are an amalgamation of several earlier tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
Thank you @Yuchitown, appreciate the feedback and knowledge on the subject. Amscheip (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion conversation occurring that is relevant to this WikiProject. CT55555(talk) 02:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it had been long settled that for people who are dual citizens of a both a nation-state (such as Canada or the United States) and a First Nation/US federally recognized tribe (or, rarely, more than one tribe, with threefold citizens), their First Nation/tribe and "American"/"Canadian" are listed in their infobox under "nationality." This can't be inferred from someone's place of birth. It's a challenge since Indian law isn't taught in most schools, so most non-Native people don't understand that tribal citizenship is not symbolic; that one does have treaty rights, follow tribal laws, vote in tribal elections, etc. Any insights here would be greatly appreciated. Yuchitown (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Pronunciation of Kúkpi7[edit]

Hello all, editor @Dirac66 left a note on the talk page for Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir, asking how it was pronounced and I wondered if anyone here would be able to let them know & perhaps add it to Casimir's page (I started the page, but am yet to learn about the pronunciation). Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! The transcription is based on the phonology section of Shuswap language. There is also this source [1], which provides the faux-netic "COOK'pee". James Hyett (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New editor adding unsourced and text that contradicts the source[edit]

All in good faith I’m sure, grat concern about genocide, etc, which is all good but they need to follow policy. It’s Ccaakk (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 20:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was he Kiowa? Anyone have any WP:NDN-RS sources for that? - CorbieVreccan 21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, absolutely and of Comanche, Seminole, and Muscogee descent. His father was a prominent Comanche artist, Asawoya. Added more sources. Yuchitown (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]
I figured he was Native, but we really need better sources. NAMMYs are not usable, as they continually award pretendians and either don't do due diligence, or don't care. Census records line up a bit differently than what's in the article and the Oklahoma bio only says "heritage". We don't have a source for where he was enrolled. - CorbieVreccan 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oklahoma Historical Society is a completely reliable source that includes Native authors and non-Native historians. Most importantly, OHS consults with all 38 Oklahoma tribes and are accountable to communities. Of course, they weren't using "heritage" the way we are now. Once in a blue moon, the NAMMYs recognize an actual Native American. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Charging Thunder[edit]

a quick question: if one wants to raise a query/concern with wikidata editors but doesn't actually want to edit a page, how would one go about it? The issue: the wikidata entry for Charging Thunder (George Edward Williams) includes a photo of the real Charging Thunder (an entirely different person). Meanwhile, on the Wikipedia Sihasapa page there is a reference to Charging Thunder (George Edward Williams) - under famous Sihasapa. The corroboration for the description is a citation of a BBC article in 2006, an interview given by an English family member. The trouble is there was only one Charging Thunder who travelled with Buffalo Bill and he didn't stay in England. No idea who George really is, but he isn't CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]