Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIndigenous peoples of North America 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.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The template for “Anishinaabe Culture” divided into two templates: "Anishinaabe Culture" and "Anishinaabe Politics"[edit]

IMO, these are separate topics. For the former I edited the existing template including creating more groups. For the latter I just did a copy and paste onto a new template thus it needs much additional work. --Denise B-K (talk)

Misinformation on Hill Agency (game) page[edit]

Hey, I'm one of the devs for the game Hill Agency and there's a bit of misinformation on it's page.(

  • Tara Miller is not a director and left the project before development started in 2019. They were the original artist on the original 2D protype PURITYdecay, but had no part in the development of the game that launched in 2023.
  • Meagan is the only director of the studio.
  • Kanienʼkehá꞉ka (Mohawk) artist Sa'dekaronhes Esquivel has been Lead Artist and Co-Creative Lead on the game from the start of 3D pre-development in 2020 until it's completion and launch in 2023.

Sorry for asking this way, no one on the team uses/edits Wiki. Thanks for your help on this! The team is really stoked for Hill Agency to have it's own wiki page! (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I corrected it! It looks like it was citing an older source (a 2017 article) for that information. Dr.was (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wolastoq for deletion[edit]

Editors are welcome to give their input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolastoq. I commented that the article should be rewritten to include Native history and the response is that is a "land acknowledgment" and isn't allowed on Wikipedia per Talk:Coquitlam#RfC_about_First_Nations_land_acknowledgement.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of vitriol over there. So far, I have the only "keep" vote. Yuchitown (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Merged to Saint John River. You know this of course, just for the record. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to check the actual numbers of the Osage Nation?[edit]

Lead:The tribe has about 16,000 members. Further down In the 21st century, the federally recognized Osage Nation has approximately 20,000 enrolled members Doug Weller talk 11:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has twice mass-removed notable entries from List of Native Americans of the United States. I attempted to restore the entries [1] but was reverted by this editor in their second mass-removal [2]. This may be of interest to this Wikiproject. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Many of the people this person has removed are notable and have many sources in their respective article. I don't know what exactly their issue is with it. They even removed highly notable figures like Deb Haaland, Tecumseh, Sequoyah, and many more notable and easily verifiably Native figures. PersusjCP (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve given them a warning for disruptive editing. If they continue I suggest going to ANI. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PersusjCP, my concern is not about the notability of these people but rather the verifiability of their belongingness to the group. Adding unsourced entries to such lists isn't a healthy practice. There is always a strong possibility that some editors put wrong entries. As such lists become exceedingly large with unsourced entries, it becomes more difficult to scrutinize them. I am adding unsourced section templates for now. Dympies (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should definitely be sourced WP:LISTVERIFY..... but that said it shouldn't be hard to transfer over some sources from main articles over blanking. Moxy- 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Rancherias Terminated by Act of 1958[edit]

Details = 1988Mishewal-Wappo begin reorganization and apply for re-recognition under the leadership of John Trippo

In 2009, the tribe filed for federal restoration. On 25 July 2013 a hearing was held in San Jose, California in the federal court of U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila. The claim was denied citing that the statute of limitations was exceeded. John Trippo family (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous tattooing[edit]

Hi all, I'm considering splitting History of tattooing into a separate article on indigenous and traditional tattooing practices. Given the size of the article, it doesn't feel very readable and I think having a separate page would allow people to expand on the contemporary practices of these traditions. I'm alerting some of the WikiProjects attached to the article; please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this idea :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Puyallup people#Requested move 21 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject has been mentioned off-wiki[edit]

Chrisahn (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr isn't a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. lol,  oncamera  (talk page) 11:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the posting isn't relevant for the main namespace. But it might be relevant for the members of this project. And WP:CANVASS or WP:LEGAL might apply to the posting. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it'll be easier to monitor pages and use this link as a source of their potential disruptive behavior per CANVASS/LEGAL.  oncamera  (talk page) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown, Bohemian Baltimore, and ARoseWolf: Ping, since the posting mentioned you by name. – Chrisahn (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also @Pingnova: since their complaint is included in the list of "evidence" against us per the Google Doc  oncamera  (talk page) 12:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't looked at the Google doc before. @Melissa Ferretti - Chairwoman and Cori Bardsley: are two more editors mentioned there, and there may be others I missed. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding other usernames mentioned: @Netherzone and CorbieVreccan:  oncamera  (talk page) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncamera, and others here, thank you for notifying me that I was mentioned in this person's Tumblr post. I don't recall ever joining something called the “Native American Articles Improvement Project”, is that even a thing? The only edit I made on Lily Gladstone was to revert a IP block evasion, and one edit on the talk page regarding overlinking. In relation to IPNA, mainly I create articles on contemporary Native American artists as well as some on historic NA arts like Pueblo pottery. I'm not mentioned at all in the Google Doc, nor do I think I should be. I'm wondering why the Tumblr author drew me into this. Netherzone (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us should be mentioned in their article. If they want federal recognition, they can take it up with the government, not blaming Wikipedia articles/smearing editors for following the rules of this site.  oncamera  (talk page) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found some discussions that may have been part of what triggered the off-wiki posting (guess I'm slow to figure this out):
Netherzone (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both either the same person as or meatpuppets of TelGonzie, whose former account was active in this discussion. COI SPA promoting and pushing POV that they couldn't substantiate with published, secondary sources; several of their accounts were indefinitely blocked but many more weren't. They'll definitely be back. Yuchitown (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Link to the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie. Netherzone (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link the two discussions. Good catch, @Netherzone. --ARoseWolf 19:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge there is not a “Native American Articles Improvement Project” but it sounds like a good idea for a taskforce if the community does that anymore. It doesn't bother me being mentioned. I'm more concerned with the mischaracterizations made. I've never edited most of the articles they mention beyond reversion of clear violations of content policy and calling for discussion rather than edit warring. When those discussions are had I weigh what is being said diligently and thoroughly and make my own determination. I do not automatically side with any position no matter who is involved. I've always honored consensus even if I disagreed. No one here knows how I really feel about subjects because I never push for that. I understand NPOV well enough after a few years of editing and being involved in discussions. The intent is to always collaborate civilly. We've had our disagreements at times, all of us. I don't know how @Pingnova is involved or why they would seemingly encourage canvassing off-wiki to damage the encyclopedia by forcing content that is not reliably sourced and goes against the very tenets of the project. I hope they will respond to the ping as I want to assume good faith because that's how we handle on-wiki disputes. I have never had a specific quarrel with them that I recall. --ARoseWolf 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all here for your support. I am very aware that there are fake tribes out there. But Herring Pond is NOT one of them. The saddest part here is that these people who have chosen to violate and murder our history's have done little to no research on the actual Herring Pond (Patuxet) people. We have our genealogy complete, have retained and continue to live on our original reservation lands and have never ceased or ceded our rights to the land, nor have we been removed. I myself have lived on my homelands all my life and grew up in Plymouth - Cedarville raised by an elder of my Tribe the only child in the district with a Herring smoking shed in my back yard.
Let's not confuse our autonomy with extinction.
We've been targeted, all but removed from the Wampanoag page almost completly by people pushing their own agenda and...nowhere does Plymouth and Wampanoag history exist WITHOUT the Herring Pond Tribe! That's a FACT!
Thank you to all of those who have stepped up to fight back and help fix this mess. We'd honestly lost hope and had to just remember that WIKI is not a reliable source as it is clear that any colonized mind can edit and spread misinformation in an attempt to erase an entire community from history.
Wikipedia should be held accountable though as this is not what this site was created for. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe is extinct or fake?  oncamera  (talk page) 12:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well our page was created without our knowing and immediately we were named a "cultural heritage group" and a non-profit that "claims" Wampanoag descendancy. There is no claim it's a fact! Might I add nonprofit status was imposed upon Tribal nations in the 90s because we didn't have our federal recognition yet. So although they don't say it it's quite evident that that's what the editors are alluding to.
Sad really! Before they go on a crusade to destroy someone they should at least do the research... Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't alluding to anything, it is just stating information based on sources. Instead of insulting Wikipedia editors, as the Chairwoman of your tribe, maybe go submit your evidence as part of the petition for federal acknowledgment and then the article can be updated once that is resolved.  oncamera  (talk page) 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've tried only to be ignored until recently...there has been some postive and respectful edits completed in the past few weeks...thanks to those people. We have also submitted and have a large collection of "evidence" that we've submitted that is being updated.
Unfortunately we cannot edit our own content. So we can only hope that others like those kind people trying to add the "evidence" are doing. But anyhow let's hope this bullying stops and we can support one another like our ancestors did. Have a great day Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just put WP:reliable sources on the talkpage and someone can update the article. However, Wikipedia does not allow WP:Original research so your collected evidence doesn't belong on this site unless it's published by a reliable source such as the Boston Globe, government source, etc.  oncamera  (talk page) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YES, Kutâputash we understand. We have not added anything as we were told that it is a conflict to add anything to the page.
..... Frank Speck Indian Notes and Monographs - Territorial Subdivision of Wampanoag...strong evidence there...
1910 Census is pretty clear as well.
Thank you for your message.
With Respect Melissa Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation should probably take place on Talk:Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe but if anything there is genuinely factually incorrect, point it out on the talk page. And if there are secondary, published sources (unlike the census, a self-reported primary source) you want to recommend, you can always post those there as well. Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Goldendragonfly77, we have been attacked, threatened with legal action, and had misinformation/false claims spread against us for following Wikipedia policy so you'll have to forgive me but what support for your plight I might have given is somewhat diminished. I certainly am not a part of any conspiracy against any tribe or organization. I have been here long enough to know that none of the editors mentioned are part of a conspiracy or plot against any tribe. The only bullying that is happening right now on Wikipedia is coming from outside this community.
I understand the motive but the means to get ones way is misguided. Off-wiki blog's can be written on anything. Off-wiki opinion pieces can be published attacking anyone. But that won't work on the encyclopedia. Activism has no place here when its means is to hurt people who are simply volunteering their time. It is very sad. Sad that people outside Wikipedia have resorted to making false statements about volunteers who are paid nothing and have followed all policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia. We can not control the fact that the federal government has only given certain tribes recognition. Likewise, we have no control over what reliable sources say or do not say about any tribe. We are bound by rules of inclusion that could lead to sanctions against us if not followed. This encyclopedia works off collaborative editing and consensus. We can not go against community consensus. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looping me into this conversation. I don't have access to the Google Doc and haven't requested access, so I'm not entirely sure the scope of how I'm involved. Are my edits being criticized by this individual? If so, I'd more than happy to review anything I've written for clarity and accuracy. There were a few editing conflicts between me and @Yuchitown sometime last year, however, I believe we ultimately came to a middle ground in wording. Cori Bardsley (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the tumblr post was shared on Bluesky and got a few hundred likes and reposts. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they don't want WP:RS, WP:V to matter. According to their position we should just let any subject of an article on Wikipedia, whether person or organization, claim to be Native American with no evidence because the US federal government says it's too difficult to determine. If there is irrefutable and undeniable proof one would think with today's technology someone would have published it and we could easily link to that as a reliable source. State resolutions are not a binding agreement. They are more than welcome to try and get me blocked from editing these pages for simply holding every subject to the same basic Wikipedia policy in good faith and without edit warring. IAR can not apply to everything. --ARoseWolf 12:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The writer Darcie Little Badger (a member of an unrecognized "Lipan Apache" group) has also posted about this on Instagram. Does anybody have the link? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just in her stories which disappear after 24 hours.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should add that I have no opinion on the subject itself (ethnicity). I started this section to notify editors of the tumblr posting. I don't agree with the posting. Its tone is rather aggressive and accusatory, and if it had been posted on-wiki, it would clearly violate WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:LEGAL, and other policies and guidelines. In general, I think such campaigns do more harm than good. – Chrisahn (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have thoughts on in-wiki responses? If anyone were actually paying attention, they would see that we all have our own diverse perspectives on subjects but are primarily trying to get POV/SPA users to comply with Wikipedia policy—mainly using secondary, published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
IIRC, isn't the whole reason Lily Gladstone's lede didn't say she was Blackfeet because there were no reliable sources to say she was an enrolled member of any tribe, just that she was of Blackfeet/Nez Perce descent? I don't think anyone here thinks she's not Blackfeet ethnically/culturally, even if she isn't a citizen, right? It's just per MOS:CITIZEN, right? Which is why it was put in literally the next sentence? Also, I can't see the google doc for some reason so I don't know what else they are using as evidence. PersusjCP (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They must have made it private for whatever reason. I downloaded a copy earlier and I can reupload or paste in my sandbox.  oncamera  (talk page) 20:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love that PersusjCP (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the uploaded PDF on tiiny site (version downloaded at 6am on 2/23/2024). They demand Wikipedia ban us all for asking for reliable sources and questioning IP editors on their COI. Basically, we should be banned for following the rules of this site.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty good conspiracy theory, with zero foundation in reality. The vagueness on which groups are actually state-recognized tribes, when they are affected by federal law (IACA), is a real-world problem facing agencies like IACB, HUD, etc. I can attest that I'm not a member of NCAI. Just because we independently pay attention to what's happening in Indian Country doesn't mean we are collectively orchestrating anything. In the early days of Wikipedia, many users got away with writing whatever they wanted on less trafficked articles, (prime example), but requiring citations has now become standard across the board. Yuchitown (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Official name of federally-recognized tribes?[edit]

This isn't exactly related to editing, but I was curious: what exactly is the official name of a federally-recognized tribe? For example: I was editing Puyallup Tribe of Indians and, as I understood Puyallup Tribe of Indians to be their official name, changed it at List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States and List of federally recognized tribes by state. I was informed by @Yuchitown that in fact, Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation is the name listed on the Federal Registrar, which when I checked to confirm, was true. However, the name used in their constitution is "Puyallup Tribe of Indians," and their reservation is the "Puyallup Indian Reservation" (They also use Puyallup Tribe of the State of Washington once in the name of the constitution). This naturally brings me to the question, what exactly is the "official" name?

In regards to the Puyallup Tribe, the preamble of their constitution states: "We the Indians of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation of the State of Washington, in order to establish a legal tribal organization and secure certain privileges and powers offered to us by the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, do hereby form an authorized tribal council, and ordain and establish this constitution and bylaws as a guide to its deliberations." This is what seems like the origin of the Federal Registrar's name. However, elsewhere in the constitution, the legal entity established by the constitution is called the "Puyallup Tribe of Indians" in full and "Puyallup Tribe" for short. This naming scheme is also used on their website, official communiques, seal, and more. I noticed a similar pattern in a few other constitutions I looked at.

To me, it seems like the preamble is more of an opening clause (who would've thought) whereas the actual articles define the name of the legal entity and the reservation themselves. I'm not a treaty lawyer so I don't really have any formal knowledge about this, anyways. I'm of course not looking to argue since I understand the reason for having the list match the federal registrar, and I think that makes sense, but just for determining the "official" name of a tribe/what to use in articles in the future, I wanted to bring this up for other peoples' opinions/thoughts, and if I am correct in my understanding. Also, why might the Federal Registrar differ so significantly and with so many cases? I assume the tribes themselves submitted that name at one point? Naming like this seems to be a phenomenon in the US, I mean, look at the US Constitution where there is also not an "official" name of the country and, to this day, United States and United States of America are used fairly interchangeably. PersusjCP (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMON NAME is usually used instead of the official name, if they are different. Like Minneapolis is officially "City of Minneapolis" but that's not the article title. I would say go with the common name and list out the "legal names" somewhere else in the article. (Even the article title United States isn't the more exact "United States of America").  oncamera  (talk page) 06:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list of federally recognized tribes always goes verbatim by what the current year’s Federal Registrar says, with redirects pointing to the article. Like oncamera says, articles go by common name. Yuchitown (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Manifest Destiny[edit]

I suggest some eyes on Manifest Destiny. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, anyone else, watch and try to improve the Lipan Apache people article. There's actually a wealth of material about the historical ethnic group, most of whose descendants are part of the Mescalero Apache today. Yuchitown (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Marcel colomb first nation page really outa date adding some info but could use help[edit]

the code for wiki is so vastly overwelming never been able to fully wrap my head around it and keep getting yelled at over the years guna need help advice as everytime i wonder back somethings changed i have images i can donate to mcfn page but am worried the system will just delete like everything ive ever put up on other articals i took acusing me of steeling my own stuff so confusing

couple people at the band put a call out localy for help with their wiki page there was an election in january and so it has the wrong cheif and councle and infact it has not been updated since 2020. internet has been very unstable till recently so no one realy accessed the web beyond email. the election was jan 30 2024 and it was their first proper vote to happen on their reserve vs in lynn lake i have photos of election day and the cerimony i can donate to their page.

added their phone fax and mailing adress

updated inacurate information of telphone and internet services in the regon was 14yrs outa date changed the very inacurat note on cell service as theres absolutly nothing for 400km's no idea why someone put saying it was avail

needs a write up about the agreement signed last year with alamos gold not sure best way to make that format source ect but a historic agreement was signed with the gold mining company for a mine in 2023.

the mine has a education cordnator thats moved up here working between lynn lake and 21 (mcfn gets referd to localy as 21 as its at mile 21 on the highway from lynn lake)

the lynn lake page could use some help linking the 2 communities pages better as well

its a small place but theres allot of positve energy around it these days

local communications is all done via facebook so allot of the source info is on one of 2 facebook pages

posts things for sale

they have their own flag as well be nice to add it

1ajs (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello 1ajs, In looking at the article I see that one of the main issues with Marcel Colomb First Nation is it reads more like an organization's profile than an encyclopedia article. Almost nothing is cited to any source, much less a reliable source. I think the band is notable based on the few primary sources provided but we are told we should not use primary sources to prove notability. We definitely cannot use Facebook to verify notability. I'll have to start digging for secondary sources but I think the article needs a complete rewrite. One could argue it shouldn't be in encyclopedia mainspace in the state that it is. That does not reflect negatively on the subject but more the articles current state as opposed to what is required by encyclopedia policy. --ARoseWolf 15:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC) --edit 15:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Northern First Nation expects boost from deal with gold mining company. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a statement about the agreement with citation. Yuchitown has also updated the article making it more encyclopedic, other various copy editing. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help i dont know what u do for siting stuff when theres no website and everyone uses facebook uphere to communicate this information. 1ajs (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include anything that can't be verified through reliable sources. That is one reason a lot of articles stay small. It can be frustrating, to say the least, but it's the policies we have to work with. --ARoseWolf 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota mythology needs eyes on it. I just removed a blog source "Legends of America" that is being used on a lot of articles. From their "About" info on the blog: "Hi Y'all, Legends of America is comprised of just the two of us — Dave & Kathy, .... With an entrepreneurial dream, we launched Legends of America in 2003." Basically they exist to sell travel stuff and fake Native American trinkets from their two "Mom & Pop" online shops. There are two other expired sources that also seem like they might be blogs (?). I don't know enough about the subject to make improvements, so I'm bringing it here for other editors to examine. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, the article for "Happy hunting ground" (which was linked in the Lakota mythology article) should probably be merged to some other article or outright deleted. It's several sentences about a poetic phrase used by settlers which, in the article, is described to possibly be completely invented by settlers. PersusjCP (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this at Doug Weller talk 19:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, once I started clicking on the various links on the LOA website and seeing all the junk they sell, I was shocked it is used on so many articles across the encyclopedia. Thanks for bringing it up on RSN. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PersusjCP, What are your thoughts on where it could get redirected to or merged into? AfD is fine by me as well. Netherzone (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no idea, it is such a broad and unrelated topic I don't know where it would even fit. PersusjCP (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find archived versions of the sources. Two more were poor quality blogs, "Living Myths" and "Gods Creations". The one remaining source, "Native American Mythology A to Z" published by Infobase Holdings, Inc., however that citation is only used for two paragraphs. The rest of the article is unsourced. I've added a maintenance tag that more sources are needed. Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide on the Talk:United States[edit]

A discussion (Talk:United States#Problematic changes made to United States-Indigenous Peoples articles) is being had that this wiki-project may be interested in. --ARoseWolf 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about deleting of the newly created stub City-recognized tribes in the United States. Yuchitown (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Would it make sense to have a "Delete Sort" category for Indigenous Peoples of the United States related AfDs? I don't know how those d.s. categories are created, or even it if would be a good idea, but it just occurred to me seeing this notification. I went to add delete-sorts using Twinkle, but this one didn't show up. Just a thot.... Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what some of those words mean. ;) I watch the project's Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Article alerts, which helps me track deletion nominations. Yuchitown (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
@Yuchitown: If you see such a nomination, please open a new section here directing editors to it--unless there is some reason this is redundant. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That is exactly what I did in this section. However, if you want to get tabs on things, just that Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Article alerts to your watch list since it covers much more than just articles for deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Yes, sorry. When you said, "I know what some of those words mean," I mistakenly thought you were a newer editor than you actually are. I will admit, I don't know what a "delete-sort" is either. LOL. Anyway, thanks for the alerts. I did comment that the one above. If you do figure out what "delete-sort" means, I'm all ears.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! What I mean by "delete-sort", is there is a useful script by EnterpriseyBot called delsort (found here User:Enterprisey/delsort ) which can be installed to your common.js sub-page that makes it really easy to add WikiProject-type categories to AfDs to draw the attention of editors in that area, alerting them that there is an AfD in an area of their interest. It shows up in the "More" menu when you're on a deletion discussion page, when you click you can add multiple relevant categories from the drop-down window that opens. (Sorry if this is not clear, I'm not a technical type person, however it is a useful tool!) Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitative nude photograph of indigenous woman on Robert Peary Page[edit]

I have been trying for some time to remove a nude photograph of an Inughuit girl, taken in exploitative conditions, from the page for American polar explorer, Robert Peary.

As I have set out at length in the discussion for the Robert Peary page, academic research has established that Peary and his fellow expedition members took a number of pornographic images of young Inughuit women. These women - including the woman in this particular photo - were almost all married. At the time (1891-1909), however, the Americans regarded the Inughuit as 'savages' and therefore fair game for them to use. Indeed, this particular woman had first been taken by Peary as his mistress (often wrongly described as his 'wife' - he was already married to an American) when she was 14. She had two children by him.

In her discussion of these photographs, Renée Hulan of St Mary's University, Halifax, Canada, took the decision not to publish any of the images to which she refers. (Renée Hulan, 'Alnayah’s People: Archival Photographs from West Greenland, 1908–1909', Interventions, 25:8, (2023), pp. 1088-1109, DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2023.2169621

Removing this photograph seems to be an appropriate course of action. These photographs were taken under exploitative conditions - the women were taken on board a ship, far from their homes, for many months. At least one was photographed tied to the mast of the ship. They are pornographic in intent and racist in origin.

However, each time I remove this image, ThaddeusSholto reinstates it. He does so without any discussion of the moral issues involved, saying only that I may not remove an image simply because 'I do not like it.'

I am certain you will agree that such a image is inappropriate for wikipedia and a shocking exploitation of indigenous peoples. It is exploitative, pornographic and racist. The individual may even have been under 18 when the photograph was taken. Since I am unable, it seems, to remove it, I am hoping that you will assist me to do so. Jon Rosebank (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Robert Peary was no hero. Carlstak (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no hero and I don't agree with or like how you were engaged or the lack of collaborative engagement. If one wants to stick to policy and make that their argument, that's fine, but they can do so with empathy too. Claiming you called them names when you didn't and threatening with blocks unless you take your position to the article talk page only to refuse to engage you there and lob more accusations of bad faith is appalling and unbecoming. --ARoseWolf 12:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the photo being removed when there is consensus to do so as there clearly is now. That being said, the "warnings" were templates and saying "wikipedia may be at the mercy of racist pornographers" is an attack on other editors. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave a long detailed message on your talk page but it's moot now. I would say that I disagree with your approach and with the premise that the above constituted and attack on you personally or us collectively. If the above editor believed that I do not think they would have taken the time to try and reason with you or even us. I think they saw what they perceived as an issue and rather than meeting someone with empathy that could see the spirit behind why Wikipedia is here they met a stone wall unwilling to discuss anything beyond how wrong they were even to the point of edit warring with them. That's unfortunate but that's my observation. I was going to try and appeal to your better judgement in the matter as an experienced editor with a lot of contributions but, as I said, it's moot. --ARoseWolf 15:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They made the accusation more than once [3] [4] so I guess we disagree about whether or not it was intended as an attack. I don't feel that asking them to use the talk page was "stonewalling" nor was asking for consensus or policy. Perhaps we disagree about what stonewalling is, too. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You told them to engage in discussion on the talk page (some might say threatened) and then ignored them and refused to engage them until today. --ARoseWolf 16:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore them, I didn't see the discussion. I didn't threaten them no matter how many times you claim I did. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will add I can see how someone that doesn't interact with this community and doesn't know our policies would see keeping the picture as consent or even agreement with it, especially when that person uses something as weird as WP:CENSOR as the basis for their willingness to edit war over it's inclusion. Do I agree with that assertion? No, else I wouldn't be here discussing it with you. But I also question who should be the experienced editor in that situation? A slightly softer tone and an attempt at empathy would go a long way. --ARoseWolf 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that advice goes both ways. I don't feel like you have been WP:AGF here at all. You ask questions and then immediately answer them for me and chastise me for things I didn't do (threaten and ignore editors.) I have given my reasons here and I am not arguing to retain the image so you can drop the stick now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment on the Robert Peary talk page explaining why I think it should be removed. Netherzone (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It saddens me to see how badly Jon Rosebank was treated. ThaddeusSholto, I hope you will consider reviewing WP:NOTVANDALISM as I don't think your use of templated warnings was in line with Wikipedia community norms.
As for the image in question, I've nominated the file for deletion on Commons: Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming discussion for Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]

There is a renaming discussion for Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States to match it with the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the most recent substantive edit ok?[5] Doug Weller talk 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the portion about self-identification. I didn't see much else that made a huge difference in the article. They can go to the article talk page to discuss the part I re-added if they so wish to contest it's inclusion. --ARoseWolf 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted this edit. Sisyphus time. Yuchitown (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SouthernNights has distorted BLP policy to protect the article in support of the sockpuppets. --ARoseWolf 12:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple: The edits on Darcie Little Badger's article violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons by making negative claims about the article's subject not backed up by reliable sources. BLP requires a higher threshold for stuff like this than non-biography articles and these recent edits absolutely crossed that line. As for sockpuppets, I don't know what you mean about that and I sincerely hope you're not accusing me of being one or working with sockpuppets (my track record as an editor and admin here should speak for itself). SouthernNights (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a negative? Show me how stating the obvious, that someone self-identifies, is a negative. Because you see it as a negative it must be a negative, right? Darcie Little Badger claims to be Lipan Apache but is not claimed as a member of a recognized sovereign Lipan Apache nation, meaning they have went through a rigorous process of proving they are directly connected to that Indigenous people here at the time of pre-colonial and colonial contact. They are a member of a cultural heritage group that is not recognized and therefore has not proven a direct link. By stating they self-identify Wikipedia is offering context. It is not a negative. We are not saying they do not descend from the Lipan Apache, only there is no source to verify this link.
I never said you are working with Sockpuppets. It wouldn't make much sense to tag you if I thought that. However, your distortion of BLP policy supports their position and their disruptive editing. --ARoseWolf 13:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying a Native American self-identifies is a major BLP issue without reliable citations" Are you saying Darcie is Native American and you have proof of this? --ARoseWolf 13:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go down an endless debate hole on all this. Per BLP, potentially negative info must be reliably sourced. It's very simple, so unless you have a reliable source specifically saying Darcie Little Badger self-identifies as Native, you can't add it to the article. You didn't provide that so the edits are not allowed per BLP.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification Reliable sources repeating or making the claim is not enough for the claim to be substantiated in Wikivoice. Does Naming Convention policy mean nothing? Are you refusing to show how self-identification is a negative claim? --ARoseWolf 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You, from an administrative position, made claims in your edit summary and your refusing to explain your arbitrary decisions adequately quite frankly is unbecoming of an administrator in this instance. You are accountable to the editing community and should go out of your way to clarify your statements and decisions not shut down concerned editors with statements like "I'm not going to go down an endless debate hole on all this.". It doesn't have to be endless but it has to make sense. I admire and look up to the admin corps and some of my closest wiki-friends are administrators or former admins. --ARoseWolf 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, saying someone self-identifies as Native can be a negative claim if that is not what they claim and, as in Little Badger's article, there are plenty of reliable sources stating that she is Native and a member of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas. Before making my decision on the BLP issue, I went through the edit history of the tribe's article. In my opinion, there is POV pushing happening to that article with regards to whether or not the tribe is state recognized. In particular, it appears citations are being cherry-picked to show the tribe is not state recognized when reliable citations that state the opposite such as the one from the University of Cincinnati Law Review are ignored or downplayed. I'm still trying to determine what all is going on with the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas article. However, Little Badger's article is an easier determination because it is covered by BLP and as such must meet those standards. My decision was neither arbitrary or unbecoming. Wikipedia takes very seriously issues related to BLP and all editors are expected to follow these standards. SouthernNights (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are pushing the neutral POV here, Southern. Other admins have looked into this and concluded that fact. As a wikiproject many members that have come and gone, very many of them I wish were still present. have worked diligently to build consensus around these topics through thoughtful discourse, relentless research of sources and dedication to accuracy. You pride yourself on your record which is understandable. You obtained that record through much the same way policies, guidelines and consensus were formed around these topics, very hard work. We do not have to cite a source that Darcie self-identifies as Native American because Darcie claims to be Native American, as you pointed out, in reliable sources. That, by definition, is self (Darci) identification (identifies). The proof is on those removing the self-identification to only state Native American so emphatically to prove status. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone identifies as being Native American is a neutral statement based on available citations (an individual making public statements that they are Native American or belong to Foo Tribe). That is all that can be proven. To make further claims would require concrete support coming from authoritative sources outside of that individual or, in the case, their organization. Native American tribe are legally defined entities throughout U.S. federal law. There's no debate that this individual is a member of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas. To say that organization is a Native American tribe would require some serious secondary, published citations that have not yet been produced. Only the State of Texas can state what its state-recognized tribes are; and state-recognized tribes themselves are a surprisingly nebulous, ill-defined concept (the primary US federal law that mentions them is the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which is currently under review for amending). Instead expending so much energy trying to WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:PROMO on Wikipedia, the LATT-affiliated individuals would be better served working IRL with their state legislators to secure recognition, since previous bills for formal state recognition have died in committee. Yuchitown (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

Just proposed moving Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico to Santo Domingo Pueblo, New Mexico. Discussion at Talk:Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico#Requested move 9 April 2024. Yuchitown (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming discussion for Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]

There is a renaming discussion for Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States to match it with the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about US ethnic cleansing in general[edit]

I am having trouble finding any single article generally covering American ethnic cleansing/genocide/forced displacement etc. of Native Americans, or even covering it west of the Mississippi, or after 1847. Indian removal (and the associated Indian Removal Act) covers 1830-1847 east of the Mississippi, and various articles e.g. California genocide cover specific incidents later/west of the Mississippi, but there doesn't seem to be any unified article about such policies throughout American (USian) history, or even specifically about such policies after Indian removal (the Eastern US policy) ended in 1847. Aspects of it are also touched on in various articles, e.g. Manifest destiny, Native Americans in the US, History of the US, etc. The closest article I can find is Native American genocide in the United States but, perhaps as a necessary result of its title, it seems to be primarily about whether such policies can be deemed a genocide, although it does make an attempt at presenting the history and the events involved, albeit far from comprehensively. Am I incorrect, and if so, can someone point me to the right article? And if I am not mistaken, do other people in this WikiProject also feel this topic deserves a general overview article (and if so, under what name)? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seems like all the forced removals should be under Indian Removal, since that’s what the U.S. federal Indian policy is most commonly called, but the article has massive gaps in the West—like Chiricahua Apaches being imprisoned in Florida, then sent to Mississippi then Indian Territory. Or captain Jack’s Modoc band being forced to NE Indian Territory. Yuchitown (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown @ARoseWolf thanks for your comments. I thought about this, but I guess an objection people might have is that in the literature the term seems to largely just refer to the Indian Removal Act and its immediate consequences. Am I wrong about this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue it would apply to forced removal after the Act passed which became U.S. federal Indian policy all the way into the 1870's with the various wars conducted to force Native Americans to assimilate or live on reservations but I do agree that is somewhat subjective. --ARoseWolf 19:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The forced removals all stem from the 1830 Act. There’s just a slight SE bias because so much has been written about those tribes compared to the Modoc Nation, for example. Yuchitown (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the forced removal aspect stemming from the 1830 Act. Where it becomes subjective to me is after the 1860's. They had removed or eliminated most tribes, especially in the east' by then and it became more about control and assimilation. I still think the case can be made that some tribes were still fighting for self-determination, albeit to get off reservations and not be assimilated. However, there are very clear examples of forced removal that occur like the Black Hills War which eventually led to the annexation of the Black Hills and removal of the Sioux after the establishment of reservations. That was in 1874, a decade after the Civil War, so clear examples of forced removal continued well into the late 1800's. These could be added to the article to expand it if consensus is that this is a continuation of Indian removal policy. --ARoseWolf 10:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yuchitown. It most likely should be under Indian Removal. I suggest starting additions for the West it in sandbox first and ping others to it to allow a wider collaboration. That is just a suggestion though. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yuchitown and ARoseWolf that it should be covered under Indian Removal. PersusjCP (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion to move Native American genocide in the United States to Persecution of Native Americans: I don't know if that's the move you'd like inorder to cover all the topics of ethnic cleansing/genocide/forced displacement etc against Native peoples. The lead should be less about IF Euro-American scholars agree on the terms and more about the numerous events that constitute these crimes against Native people.  oncamera  (talk page) 14:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferron article[edit]

I'm an editor working on the Ferron article and the question has emerged as to how to treat her Métis identification. She was tagged in the category of First Nations musicians. I guess I am looking for some help in evaluating sources. I see: personal statement identifying as Métis, a quote from several years ago that her immediate family are enrolled (and that she was enrolling). I don't see a way to search for citizenship documentation online. She is mentioned on as Métis, was included in the National Music Centre exhibit on Indigenous musicians and recently performed at Talking Stick Festival. I am not First Nations so I was wondering if there's a sense of what sources would carry more weight on this issue. Thanks! Justinkrivers (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Métis ≠ First Nations. They are both two different Indigenous identities. (That being said, some Métis identify as FN but its absolutely not the "official" or even common, afaik, terminology, and there is a legal difference.) PersusjCP (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that CBC says: "She talks about discovering her family's Métis heritage. She says her siblings have gotten their papers, and she plans to do the same now that she's back from the States" (CBC). With situations this tenuous, you could directly quote the source or leave it be until a reliable source says something more concrete. Yuchitown (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
This: Ferron discovered later in her life that she had Métis ancestry. is sourced to a blogspot blog, not a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the CBC citation is the proper source for that content, so it is reliably sourced. Justinkrivers (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deprecated source should be removed and replaced with a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Courtesy ping Justinkrivers - Netherzone (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are there Indigenous news sources that, if they reported her as a specific identity, would be considered credible? In other words, a news source that might be generally considered more credible and diligent in fact checking such a statement? Also wondering what the proper categories might be. I'm not a part of this project so I'm hoping to understand what categories might be in development or are developed that would be appropriate here. Justinkrivers (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She’s already categorized appropriately. Yuchitown (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a Métis musician category? Justinkrivers (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a large gap between telling the CBC she thinks she might have Métis heritage and being Métis. Her current categories are accurate, until some reliable new information comes forth that a Métis Nation has accepted her as a member. Yuchitown (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, until there are reliable sources, ideally either from the nation itself or a reliable media source quoting the nation, we shouldn't include any more than what is there. Ferron has identified her as having Métis ancestors in an interview. That is the very definition of self-identification. She acknowledges she is not a member of the Métis nation but has filed paperwork. When that process is completed successfully and she is accepted by the nation I think that will satisfy the recommendations found in WP:NDNID. --ARoseWolf 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does she say what nation? It's not one of those Metis non-profits where people pay an application fee and get their card to pass off as Metis nation, right?  oncamera  (talk page) 15:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf Let's assume for a hypothetical moment that that process is complete. How would one know or confirm that? Justinkrivers (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Oncamera points out, if it is a non-profit that claims to be Métis then it doesn't change anything, even with confirmation. The affirmation of acceptance will come from that respective recognized nation. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf so let's say hypothetically that an affirmation of acceptance is issued by a respective recognized nation. How does one know or confirm that? Justinkrivers (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a record. The process to confirm or verify that record I do not know. Perhaps an editor with more knowledge in this particular field will be able to assist. My focus is more on Indigenous peoples in the United States and Alaska. I do know that without the confirmation the article is fine as it is worded now without the categories that were removed. --ARoseWolf 16:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation, very helpful. Justinkrivers (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for federally-recognized tribes?[edit]

Is there an infobox specifically for federally recognized tribes in the US? I know the First Nations infobox exists. I see a mix of {infobox ethnic group}, {infobox settlement}, and {infobox country}. I stick to {infobox settlement} or {infobox country} since the ethnic group one I usually keep for articles about the ethnic groups, rather than the tribal governments/entities. PersusjCP (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for bringing this up! I would love (when I have the time) to try to create more articles for Alaska Native tribes and villages. Honestly the settlement template, link on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation usually has information I cannot locate, especially for tribes without reservations. Do more experienced editors know of any places in Wikipedia to get assistance creating in a template? Yuchitown (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"create more articles for Alaska Native tribes and villages" This, too, is what I want to focus more on. It is a subject severely in need of support. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown, Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes might be a good place to start. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilou Awiakta[edit]

Marilou Awiakta's daughter has radically altered her mother's article, including removing sources showing her mother isn't enrolled in a Cherokee tribe. The article now looks like an advertisement. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]