Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

New project: List of Mississippian sites in Cherokee homelands

As shown on the Talk page for List of Mississippian sites, Tsistunagiska has good ideas for a project to add Mississippian sites in Cherokee homelands to this list, and to add nav points to related ancestors and tribal nations. (Nikwasi is already listed in this table, which consists only of sites with existing WP articles). Kituwa could probably be added, but needs to be checked for relative conformity to other sites. Because our discussions have been concentrating on Cherokee history and its relation to Mississippian-era and earlier culture period sites/mounds in its homeland, I added some ideas for how to proceed on that Talk page, thinking that other editors might be interested in such a project.Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This will probably be a multi-step process, as noted in the possible strategy at Talk:Cherokee history, with different kinds of opportunities for editors: 1) assess existing Wikipedia articles for Mississippian-era sites in Cherokee homelands (or upgrade existing articles to have common types of information as shown in the List table; 2) settle on Benjamin Steere's article (as cited way above on this page for "Cherokee mounds") as a framework for selecting other sites to document, 3) select new sites/towns to be added, based on his assessment of those that have the most information, 4) develop articles to achieve that. Making a separate article, "List of Mississippian sites in Cherokee homeland", or similar title, would provide a starting point. The table model format could be copied from the List of Mississippian sites. Then sites could be transferred into the big List of Mississippian sites. Parkwells (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Really, really late to this conversation, but "South Appalachian Mississippian Tradition" is a term used for this region (RLA-UNC). Usually, a contemporary ethnic group to describe precontant earthworks from a wide region just unnecessarily creates problems and assumptions. Tribes such as Pedee can't speak on their own behalf; due to Indian Removal there's strong erasure of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy in this era; emerging evidence suggests major mound sites were multiethnic and multilingual; and many Indigenous groups ceased to exist to Spanish-introduced diseases before their names were recorded in written history. Yuchitown (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Editor on a campaign to replace the word "Indian" with "Native American"

See User talk:Doug Weller#Use of Indian, Talk:List of Indian massacres#Requested move 8 December 2020 and edit summaries here.[1]. @Vajra Raja: are you going to try to do this for all articles? Your motivation seems to be your edit summary which says that "The term Indian overwhelming refers to Indian citizens and it's diaspora, instead of indigenous Americans" whichh doesn't seem a satisfactory reason. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vajra Raja: Speaking as a descendant of American Indian's, many citizens of native nations in the United States prefer the use of the term "American Indian" over "Native American" or "Indigenous American's" simply because anyone born in the US is considered a natural citizen and the "N.A." term can be used to describe any number of groups of people. We do not see the use of "Indian" to be derogatory or negative, in and of itself. It's more about the way it's used and the character of the person using it. I can tell you that Doug is a very conscious person and understands the complexities of interacting with various cultures. The term "Indian" was placed on those living in the America's by European explorers and colonist. Obviously we are not from India but to say we can't use the term to refer to ourselves is a disservice to our historical importance in the America's and the US specifically. Being called an American Indian or Indian has done nothing to diminish the significance of India or its people from ancient times to the present, nor should it. The reverse can be said as well. Let's leave it that way, please and thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As an enrolled member of a Native American tribe, I'm not a fan of the word Indian being applied to us. Absolutely none of my Native friends or family do either, so I don't think it's true that "many" Natives that actually prefer that anymore when speaking of themselves. I'd say it's almost more of tribal and federal government archaic term at this point.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oncamera, I respect your position and we can agree to disagree as I have with many others. I am an enrolled member too and I can tell you that many do associate themselves as American Indians. It doesn't surprise me that you , your family and the friends you associate with refer to yourselves as Native Americans and that's ok. You have that right and I celebrate it with you. However, assuming all Indigenous peoples want that term used to identify them in a broad sense is a continuation of discrimination, not the opposite. In fact, as late as the early 2000's, according the US Census Bureau, nearly 50% of those identifying as Indigenous preferred the term "American Indian" while 40% preferred "Native American" and the rest preferred a different term or no term at all. The number has fluctuated throughout the last 20 years but all three terms are considered acceptable. Let me state that I am not opposed to the use of Native American or Indigenous American. My point is, why should only one voice be heard? I disagree with replacing the term Indian with Native American in all instances. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans are by far the most undercounted people when it comes to the census, especially on reservations, so I do not think that is the only source we should use when it comes to rationalizing the use of the term.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• So your answer is to discount those who do associate themselves as American Indians just because you don't use or prefer the term? That's your answer? I prefer to listen to all sides and respect all views without disenfranchising any who are willing to keep an open mind. If you want to associate as Native American, then do you. There are a number of articles here on Wikipedia that use the term to identify the native population in the US and I am not trying to change the term used there. But it is not the only appropriate term and I refuse to discriminate against or disenfranchise those, some of whom I know personally, who, like myself, use these other terms to identify themselves. To change or alter the knowledge of history just because you don't like what someone said or because you don't prefer a specific term is not the answer to anything. The fact is that none of the terms used today were used historically by natives. Almost all of them associated with their respective tribal nations and clans but some terms were used by others and have historical significance, even if a majority disagree with their usage today. "Native American" is a term that was created in the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement. "American Indian" was used before the 1960's and has stayed relevant since among many, yes, many nations and tribes, and "Indian" has been used for over 500 years to describe natives in the western hemisphere. Recently, from about 2010 on, "Indigenous" has become another popular descriptive term used. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is being "discounted" by using either term, don't waste my time trying to argue things that I'm not implying or trying to imply. When I mentioned Natives being undercounted by the census, that is exactly what I mean and doesn't have anything to do with "discounted". Many Natives' opinions on the terms were not included in the census because they were literally not included by not being counted, therefore, I don't think the statistics on that poll accurately reflect the real numbers.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What it does mean is that, no matter how it is spun, a large percentage prefer to identify as something other than Native American. That is a fact. The part about discounting had nothing to do with your census comment but from your disregard of my usage of the word "many". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

How we formally and publicly name ourselves is a good way to understand local Indigenous perspectives on the term Indian. The List of federally recognized tribes in the United States provides good examples of how Native peoples within the United States use the term. Yuchitown (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

See also Talk:List of Indian massacres#Requested move 8 December 2020. On the issue, I was told decades ago that there was a regional element to it but have no idea if that's true. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Although I'm not Native American, I do my best to stay acquainted with other cultures. I have read Native American writers like Leslie Marmon Silko, whose excellent fiction work Almanac of the Dead has Native American activists who plan to retake the Americas (both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border) from European conquerors. Louise Erdrich's The Night Watchman (2020) is also excellent. As is the work of Sherman Alexie, whose short stories were made into the movie Smoke Signals (film). The book Killers of the Flower Moon covers the Osage Indian murders--the murder of Osage tribal members in order to steal their land for resources. I am also familiar with colonialism and imperialism that continues to this day, where indigenous people's lands have been and continue to be sought for their natural resources and sovereign nations' governments are undermined by the U.S. and other countries (e.g. United States involvement in regime change).

Given my limited knowledge, I do consider the term "Indian" alone to refer to Native Americans--as in "Cowboys and Indians"--to be problematic. I agree with Oncamera that it is archaic, being based on Columbus's foolishness and reliance on bad science to think he had circumnavigated the globe. Columbus was no friend of Native Americans, sending slaves back to England for profit. Why we have statues of him in the U.S. or a holiday to honor him is beyond me. I agree calling the D.C. football team "Redskins" is racist. It's taken the U.S. a long time to reflect on it's genocidal past, accept that the conquered peoples were not inferior, and learn from it moving forward.

That said, I do believe American Indian is still accepted and I respect the opinion of Tsistunagiska. San Francisco State University has an American Indian Studies program . The first article that came up when I googled it was in Oprah magazine [2] (not WP:RS) claims that it depends who you ask what term is best, as we see above. I have asked my Native American friends what they think.

I think it would be better if we used either Native American -or- American Indian -or- Indigenous peoples of North America, rather than simply "Indian". I think the Indian from India has a point.

We should also be looking at the best more recent WP:RS that covers this. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks, David Tornheim. I very much respect OnCamera too. I don't see us being on different sides. Where we may disagree, and I would love further discussion about it, is if, how or when to apply these terms. We are not enemies and I simply adore OnCamera and highly respect their ancestral heritage. I have and would again stand with them in defense of their history being preserved. I just feel that if we start opening these articles up to the change that is being prescribed, it will cause further division. What term gets used? We can't have a title that includes all three, nor should we be encumbered with the task of using all three terms every time we refer to ourselves or our ancestors in a general setting. But to only use one would disenfranchise those who choose not to associate with those terms. I'll be honest, I don't really use Indigenous People of North America outside the actual project here. That is why, as often as I can I prefer to associate with my tribe or clan where applicable. However, in the context of article creation I think it should be left up to whomever creates the article. I won't argue against using any of the three. In the context of this particular article I don't think anything should change. Keep it as is. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I respect the views of all the concerned editors, including even Vajra Raja, with whom I disagree. I am a small part Cherokee, but I don't believe that means I can speak for Cherokees or other native peoples in the US. Speaking merely as a Wikipedia editor, I think Tsistunagiska has made a Solomonic suggestion: accept the fact that natives have various opinions regarding the matter, and leave it up to whomever creates the article to set the precedent of usage for that particular article. Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. To clarify: Above when I said, "either Native American -or- American Indian -or- Indigenous peoples of North America", I meant any of the three as is appropriate. And I did not mean to suggest that it is an absolute rule, but instead as a guideline that it is preferable to use one of these over "Indian" alone. It would be similar to use of gender-free language as preferable to calling an editor "he" when you do not know the gender. I got some responses to my Native American friends. I'll see if I can post them here.

As for allowing editors to decide the title, editors often come up with objectionable, cumbersome and confusing titles for countless reasons, and we often change them. For titles of articles we have to stick to the WP:RS and the policy WP:TITLE. I haven't carefully reviewed WP:TITLE to see whether it addresses anything related. It might. I might be mistaken, but my impression is that this discussion might go beyond article titles and also include article content, headings, etc. It could even apply to preferred usage on talk pages and even apply to civility. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been doing cleanup on these WP:SPA accounts and IPs. I think it's a very small number of users, reincarnating with SPA accounts and editing logged out. There's a "genre change" warning in Twinkle that I've been using to warn them. This warning I just gave explains why these types of edits usually have to be treated like vandalism, even if well-intentioned. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that. I'm glad we are having the discussion here. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, to address your assumption I wont be doing this for all articles as they don't need correction. However this article title is poorly worded and needs improvement. Other articles use Indigenous American or Native American instead of the antiquated Indian designation. The term Indian has been used since antiquity to specifically refer to the Indian subcontinent and the people of India. The use of "Indian" for Indigenous Americans, was a misnomer used by European settlers who incorrectly believed it was India. Since the vast majority of the term Indian is associated with the Indian subcontinent and its people, this marginalizes Indigenous Americans and their history. This is too similar to the Wiki page Massacres in India. The categories do not have a commonality asides from a historical confusion. Would you be able to provide a reasoning to why this article should use Indian instead of more modern identifiers? Vajra Raja (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vajra Raja: If you're referring to List of Indian massacres in North America, it looks like the move/rename discussion you started at Talk:List of Indian massacres in North America#Requested move 8 December 2020 has closed, and there was no consensus to change "Indian" to "Native American", so I'd leave it alone. I think you can rest assured that most participants in this wikiproject know the long-term history and origins around the naming issue here in the Americas. Rather that attempting to Right the Great Wrong of names chosen generations ago, we also have to respect what living communities call themselves right now, including the official names of communities and organizations. The entire range of names are included in these self-identifiers, including many Native groups and individuals who self-identify as "Indian". I think all these points have been raised already; just reiterating in case you haven't kept up with the discussion. We are going to revert anyone who tries this wholesale name changing against consensus, and against the official names of these communities and orgs. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a potential fix: the "As written" template

It won't stop determined vandals, but may help the well-meant disruption: {{Template:As written}}. Here's an example, that User:Mathglot helped out by adding after someone vandalized (and broke) the pan-Indian link in an article: {{as written|reason=This term is used by the Ojibwa journalist in Note 8; please justify any changes to it on the Talk page.|[[pan-Indian]]}}

I wouldn't go to the trouble of pre-emptively adding it in all over the place, but if you're already there to revert, and and it seems more appropriate than protecting the article - it's another tool to have at hand. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Example quoted by CorbieVreccan can be found in the lead sentence of Two-spirit. Another potential fix is the use of an Edit notice, such as the one at Allahabad (click 'Edit' to view it). Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

Lots of over-generalizations and inappropriate homogenization of diverse cultures. Continually asserts that there is one, unified, "Indigenous Worldview". There will be a cherrypicked quote from a person from a single culture, followed by an assertion that this is "THE Indigenous Worldview", implying the view of one person, sometimes a nn person, is help by all Indigenous Peoples. *sigh* Needs cleanup at the very least. I've cut some stuff, but this is a mess. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Also: Native American rhetoric. Looks like a student paper. I took a pass at it the other night. Needs way more cleanup, if it should even be an article on here at all. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

AND, we already have: Traditional knowledge. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan: I admire your amazing work at cleaning it up but, personally, I would propose the article for deletion. There is no "one unified Indigenous worldview". We all know that to be true. Being among several nations and familiar with many more, there are similarities that can be drawn from them in some cases but I would hardly call them a unified worldview. The article does present reliable sources but the sources themselves do not perpetuate a "unified" worldview as much as it does in reflecting the similarities in each of the individual or tribal views (plural). And, like you said, the addition of non-native persons and implying their view can somehow be juxtaposed upon those of native peoples is highly problematic. I think many of us, meaning native and non-native alike, find peace and a deeper sense of a connection with the past and present when we are engaged in activities surrounding our views and those we have been taught but I can't say it's unified just because there are similarities. Maybe a partial merge with Traditional knowledge is possible? I don't know. I do think you made an admirable attempt and the article is definitely better than before. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I Prodded both Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Native American rhetoric, but both Prods have been objected to. So, we have to either propose a merge or AfD. I'm thinking AfD on rhetoric and merge on "IWOK".. Actually... I don't think "IWOK" should be cluttering up any other article... So I'm not sure what the best option is there. The creator of IWOK is also re-introducing some of the more questionable content and sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, these articles need more editors or hands-on support in doing something with them. The person who wrote Indigenous Ways of Knowing is getting very WP:OWNy and not listening. ANI is probably the next step, but ANI editors don't always understand Indigenous issues so a better first step would be if more folks with the background could help out here. This is a mess. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan I think you did the best you could and that's admirable. I also think I was very blunt but not aggressively in responding to them. You can't misrepresent over 2 million people in the United States and countless other millions of people around the world by trying to pass off their individual and tribal beliefs as one united belief system. I don't care how many academic scholars you pull your sources from. It doesn't make it true. On a side note, my fingers are sticking together they are so cold. Makes typing difficult. (LOL) --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the talk page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done a thorough comparison of previous edits of the article to the more current edits but it's easy to see deficits in older versions. Despite this being a subject of academic research, the parameters of the subject are really broad, all Indigenous cultures. Some of the academic material is almost philosophic in vagueness. The article had (and has) wa-a-ay too many generalities without support citations. Also generalities backed with very specific cultural citations. It is such a mess I have trouble seeing ways to improving it without stripping it down to almost stub level and starting over from a sturdy foundation. Or maybe delete it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted, as it needed to be. But look what the user who created that mess just posted: Two-Eyed Seeing, with a section that duplicates some of that content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The institute that promoted two-eyed seeing has been closed for almost 10 years. Folks in Miꞌkmaꞌki found it troublesome and exploitative of the elders they roped in. The program is no longer being used and was used in a very limited copacity (thank god). I don't feel that it's in the least bit notable. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The article had a subsection on.... Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Basically, an attempted end-run around the AfD. I have strongly suggested to Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that they check in here and get up to speed with the concepts of collaboration and consensus before proceeding any further with these attempts to create problematic "Indigenous" articles. @Xicanx: this is where we are. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. It helps to actually see a conversation happening rather than just being notified out of nowhere that the articles I've worked on have been deleted. I do think that the way this second deletion has occurred is unfair, especially considering that the article Two-Eyed Seeing was entirely based on reputable sources (much more clear than Indigenous ways of knowing [which I can see was less clear and based on concepts/application that were less clear]) and cited publications from 2020, 2019, 2018, etc. The definition of the term also explicitly used the phrase Indigenous ways of knowing. I did not, just as I did not before, make up this term or create it out of thin air. It just interested me, this attempt to bridge and compare perspectives (as broad and 'problematic' as that may be) in a world that is so obviously out of balance. However, I do not want to have any ongoing 'feud' (lol) with anyone or whatever. So, with that said, I will not create any articles on 'Indigenous ways of knowing' as that is what is appeared to be desired. Thank you again for the invitation. Xicanx (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done some more looking for sources which reference the 'problematic' elements of Two-Eyed Seeing, and I have found zero. All I keep finding are more and more (not a small amount) which use the framework as a research method. For the record, here are many published from 2020 and 2021 on Two-Eyed Seeing:

• A Two-Eyed Seeing Context-based Approach for Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into School Science Teaching
• ‘Two-eyed seeing’: the integration of spiritual care in Aboriginal residential aged care in South Australia
• (Re)claiming our bodies using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach: Health-At-Every-Size (HAES®) and Indigenous knowledge
• Envisioning indigenized geography: a two-eyed seeing approach
• Positionality and Research: “Two-Eyed Seeing” With a Rural Ktaqmkuk Mi’kmaw Community
• Two‐eyed seeing: A useful gaze in Indigenous medical education research
• Two-eyed seeing of the integration of oral health in primary health care in Indigenous populations: a scoping review
• “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management
• Co‐creating better healthcare experiences for First Nations children and youth: The FIRST approach emerges from Two‐Eyed seeing
• Reimagining conservation translocations through two-eyed seeing.

Here's more from 2019 and 2018:

• An Application of Two-Eyed Seeing: Indigenous Research Methods With Participatory Action Research
• A Two-Eyed Seeing Approach to Research Ethics Review: An Indigenous Perspective
• A “two-eyed seeing” approach to Indigenizing nursingcurricula
• Using Two-Eyed Seeing to Explore Interagency Collaboration
• “Two-eyed seeing” supports wildlife health
• Using Two-Eyed Seeing in Research With Indigenous People: An Integrative Review
• Indigenous works and two eyed seeing: mapping the case for indigenous-led research
• Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada

I could go on, but I think the point has been illustrated. This is why these arguments and actions are confusing, considering the amount of sources discussing this topic. It's not just 'a few articles', as was argued. If it's about removing information you personally do not agree with, just say that. I'd accept that because that appears to be more truthful rather than these other types of arguments (attempts to frame something that isn't actually there). Anyway, I still stand by what I said about not recreating this page or related pages because I personally do not have the energy to engage. I am stating this for the record. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This has zero to do with our personal opinions on the material. You wrote an article misrepresenting that this is utiltized by, and authorized by, the Elders of a specific community. I was contacted by representatives of said Elders / community with information about how this material wound up in academic papers, how it's being misrepresented, and who adamantly insisted that they not be misrepresented this way. As an admin, and as a member of this wikiproject, I take these issues of ethical representation very seriously. Not every paper or article that gets written is a good, reliable, or ethical source, especially when it comes to Indigenous issues, which are fraught with misrepresentation, exploitation, and academics trying to make careers out of violating cultural boundaries. If you had actual contact with, and respect for, the communities you are trying to write about you would know this. We are not just here to document anything and everything that someone somewhere has written about. Please consider these issues of boundaries and Indigenous Sovereignty. They are more important than Publish or Perish. At least to Indigenous people and relatives. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If it was a misrepresentation, it was a misrepresentation on the part of numerous sources and the authors themselves. I did not write that the concept was "authorized by" anyone. I wrote that it originated from a particular origin (which was supported by several sources). The concept has since been applied by numerous academics, who identify as both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. In any event, thank you for your informative message. Best. Xicanx (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Code of Indian Offenses

Just came across this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Indian_Offenses Does anyone else think that the description in the first sentence is highly biased and sounds as if it was taken straight from this legislation itself? "The Code of Indian Offenses was an 1883 body of legislation in the United states, intended to help the Indian tribes live up to the white man's standard of civilization."

I'd argue to remove the subordinate clause starting with "intended ..." or rephrase it to make it more neutral, or perhaps indicate from the outset that this legislation probably violated the 1st amendment, as indicated later in the article. (But as a non-native speaker I lack the cultural background/sensitivity to rephrase it appropriately ...) Hattifnatt~dewiki (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was a mess. I just did a fairly massive restructuring and cleanup. Still needs work, but at least I got rid of the poor tone it had, threw out all the cruft that wasn’t relevant to the topic so it doesn’t read like somebody’s C-graded term paper any more. Thanks for bringing our attention to this. Montanabw^(talk) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Time to Revisit Junípero Serra?

I just wrapped up a quick review of the article on Junípero Serra and was sorely disappointed by what appeared to me to be an apologist bias. Given the importance of this fellow to the history of California and its indigenous peoples, would anyone be willing to help me bring some more objective history to the article? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic Cherokee settlements

Wanted to write something about the above article. I elected to refrain from further involvement in Cherokee related articles in deference to a family request. That does not mean that I won't point out an amazing article when I run across it or am involved in watching it grow. GenQuest really did due diligence on this one and, through determination and a little assistance from others, created what is arguably the most comprehensive list and article of historic Cherokee settlements there is online. I am very appreciative of the efforts. I hope everyone will give it a look and even though you might be able to find ways to improve it, which is always encouraged, I think it's pretty incredible as it is. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

John Buck (Onondaga politician)

Just created this by cobbling together a number of (mostly antiquated) sources. If anyone more familiar with the historical context could take a look, it'd be very much appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

The IPs and new accounts (most likely the usual COI suspects) are back, trying to abuse the 'pedia to promote this non-Native hobbyist group as a real tribe. The Alabama commission's mistake shouldn't override the sovereignty of the Cherokee people. The Cherokee Nation enrolls anyone who can prove heritage. The "Echota" enroll anyone who expresses a sincere belief they are Native. Their websites used to have fake clans, to which they assigned non-Natives based on what area of the country they live in, and roles for their hobbyist members like "shaman", and photos of them dressed in Hollywood Indian made-up regalia costumes. Unfortunately, some well-meaning, newer members don't seem to know this stuff about them and are siding with the IPs and perennial socks/SPA's to claim they're a real tribe of Cherokee people. Could use more eyes from those who actually know about this stuff. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan I actually ran into a group from this "tribe" when I was travelling between the Carolina's and Oklahoma. I debated a few things with them. However nice they were in the beginning it always turned ugly when I started inquiring exactly how they can prove their ties to the old Cherokee Nation-East. They always mumble something almost indiscernible about Dragging Canoe. Push harder and they say they don't have to prove anything. Ok, I guess you are right, technically. Have you seen specific evidence of them making fraudulent edits here? I admit, I have stopped watching the Cherokee articles almost entirely. --ARoseWolf 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There are behavioural patterns going back for years now:

Two new accounts and an IP or two show up. They blank all sourced criticism, notably statements from the federally-recognized tribes and other actual Native people/s. The two new accounts usually then insert POV, essay-like content extolling the virtues of their group. Usually it is completely unsourced, or cites sources that don't source the content, or is only sourced to their personal site. The content often includes details that would only be known to group members (indicating possible COI). After being warned and edit-warring a bit the new accounts and IPS go dormant. But several months later, the pattern repeats with... two new accounts and another IP or two. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This activity sometimes occurs after some of their members are called out online, such as when some of their non-Native artists get reported for violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to request permanent semi protection on that article and pending changes review so we restrict these drive by edits. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Montanabw. Thank you CorbieVreccan for bringing it to everyone's attention here. This type of censoring and washing of information is a big problem. The staple of Wikipedia is to maintain a NPOV. We can't do anything about groups like these being notable, even if they are mostly known for the wrong reasons, but we can ensure that all sides are represented where reliable sources can be found. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't protect it myself as I've done cleanup on the article. Some admins would just do it themselves anyway, but that's actually against policy. The first request didn't fly as the admin looking at the request didn't seem to understand this isn't just one IP. I've refiled the request with a fuller explanation. We'll get it protected eventually. Pending is not ideal as I think well-intentioned users who are unfamiliar with real tribes vs hobbyists that managed to wrangle state recognition would accept edits that they don't realize are hoaxy.

We should also take the time to do a sock report and get the COI socks blocked. It's clearly the same one or two connected/COI users. Since they initially went dormant for longer periods before reincarnating, I didn't bother. But now that they're pushier, I think it's time. I'd rather someone else put it together, as my time on here is a bit limited right now, but I can help with it. I've also removed and put in for a rename of the photo that was added by one of the COI new accounts. See what I put on talk. We have no idea who that individual is (unless someone recognizes them), and definitely no reason to assume they represent that group. Given that account's edit history, I don't think it's unreasonable to demand sourcing that they have permission to use that person's image. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection is only for a week. Be ready to deal with disruption when protection expires, including requesting re-instatement of protection, this time for a much longer period. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson#Indian removal policy

A request for constructive input regarding the wording used in this Featured Article at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Native Americans. 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit of much-needed cleanup there. Thanks for the ping. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Montanabw. (There's a new pony in the forest :-) Cheers, 86.186.168.230 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sq**w

This perennial needs eyes. Per usual, insertion of unsourced opinion and weasel words "Some may find it offensive...", privileging of non-Native and other incorrect interpretations/bad sources, etc. And the regular rounds of vandalism. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

on covering archeological sites

Hey, i am not an archeologist, but am developing about a lot of sites which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I have been encountering problems/gaps in trying to link to wider archeological topics. Have raised some specific and general questions, would welcome comments, at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Archeological sites on NRHP in South Dakota. Thanks for considering! --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh Day

Greetings. I've recently rewritten Wikipedia's article on Tecumseh with scholarly sources, with an eye toward making it a Featured Article and getting it on the Main Page. I've since learned that last year the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma began commemorating October 5 as "Tecumseh Day," so naturally that seems like a perfect target date for featuring Tecumseh on Wikipedia's Main Page. The review process is slow, so it may take some time. The article is currently undergoing an A-class review with the Military History Project, although it hasn't generated much interest yet.

Now I'm wondering if even more might be done on the Main Page on "Tecumseh Day." Sometimes there are "themes" on the Main Page for certain notable events. I could easily write/upgrade a handful of Tecumseh- or Shawnee-related articles that could appear under the "Did You Know?" section on the same day, and I'm sure other editors could do the same. I'm guessing for something like this to happen, a group of interested editors would need to support it. If a Shawnee "theme day" actually gets in the planning stages, I would reach out to the three Shawnee tribes and let them know what we're up to.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Kevin1776 (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Tecumseh is currently a Featured Article candidate. Kevin1776 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support this, but I'm not sure what I can do. Cmacauley (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you could contribute a lot. Your recent work focuses on obscure Shawnee leaders. Maybe you could prepare another one for the "Did You Know?" section of the Main Page on October 5. Paxinosa, perhaps? Also, several of your recent articles are already close to Good Article standards, like Kakowatcheky. Come October, you could nominate several of these as Good Articles, so they could then appear on the Main Page in the "Did You Know?" section, which accepts both recently promoted Good Articles as well as recently created articles. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to give that a shot. I think my articles are far from GA worthy, but they might get there. Researching 18th century Native Americans is not easy, as documentation is often sparse. I might be willing to do a GA review, any suggestions? Cmacauley (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think we'll want to do our GA reviews in September. We can't do them too early, because to appear in the "Did You Know?" feature on the Main Page, they need to be recent promotions. I'm planning on getting Blue Jacket and Cornstalk to GA status by that time, and maybe Captain Logan and Black Hoof as well, so Good Article reviews on those articles could use your help come September. I'm also planning on creating Kekewepelethy/Captain Johnny and John Lewis (Shawnee leader) as new articles (not necessarily Good Articles) for "Did You Know?" at that time as well. Thank you for your interest and help! Kevin1776 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on Neucheconeh but still have a ways to go before it's ready. Cmacauley (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Let me know if you need any cites from Lakomäki, Sami (2014), Gathering Together, which has useful references to Neucheconeh. My draft of Captain Lewis is under development here. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

BC–AD –> BCE–CE — is it time to change the Archaic period? (discussion)

A discussion about changing the era dating style at Archaic period (North America) is underway at Talk:Archaic period (North America)#Era (times are changing). Please join. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedians learning by helping

Hello friends, I have just started writing in Wikipedia. My entries so far include Land Back and Red House eviction defense. I am pretty good at fixing sentence structure and grammatical things and happy to help anyone in the group if that's useful, as I learn my way around a bit more. Also I could help with research, just let me know. Art to Tech (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

NMAI Native American Women Wikipedia Edit-a-than

NMAI is hosting a NMAI Native American Women Edit-a-thon on Friday, April 23, from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm EDT. Pre-registration recommended via Eventbrite. Ahalenia (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

Apache languages

Do we have any experts here on the Apache languages? I posted a pertinent question at the Language RefDesk and was told to ask it here instead. Muzilon (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)