This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hello, does anyone here have a special interest with the Unami, Delaware, or Algonquian articles? I've had a headache over the last few weeks dealing with an editor who has his own orthographic system that he's determined to interject into Lenape-related articles, despite the fact that they aren't published anywhere. He's not a linguist or affiliated with the Delaware Tribe of Indian's Lenape Language Preservation Project (or any federally or state-recognized tribe). I'm not getting through with warnings against original research. He's mainly been working on Lenape, Susquehannock, Lenapehoking, and many geographical articles around Pennsylvania. This is the kind of material I've had to remove:

Almost every historian has misinterpreted the simple meaning of “Lenape.” According to interviews with those who have some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Ah-too Nee-poo We-po-schwa-gen She-pong of Neshaminy, Mahantango, Tionesta, and Cocalico, Pennsylvania...

Any assistance or advice how to stem the tide of original research and original orthographies would be greatly appreciated. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I reverted most of their additions and dropped a UW-1 on their talkpage about SPS and print-on-demand books as sources. GregJackP  Boomer! 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and just to clarify, of course anyone of any educational, professional, or cultural background is equally eligible to edit any article. It's just the editor's statements that all published sources are wrong, and only the editor knows the truth is worrisome. And the original research that is not found in the accompanying citations. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

On a related note, this only crops up rarely, but has anyone ever heard of the "Tla wilano dialect" of Lenape? The problem is that a few editors over the years have added information that this was supposedly the native language of Southwestern Virginia, but this contradicts everything in my understanding about the actual linguistic situation there. I have never seen anything in reliable sources about this language and can't tell where they are getting it from. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 00:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that Ethnologue mentions it, but also says there are no living Unami language speakers. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Actually that is not what it says, it says it doesn't know of any but that a 2000 survey lists 308 who use it at home (which suggests that there are living speakers). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There are in fact recordings available on the smithsonian website, which is fairly solid empirical support for Goddard's work. [1] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I can believe that, I just seriously doubt that it was ever actually native to Southwest Virginia! Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 02:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• This article says the last native speaker of Unami Edward Thompson died in 2002. [2]. It also says that: "; Northern Unami was spoken in the area surrounding, and to the southeast of, the Lehigh River; and Southern Unami was spoken in the area surrounding the Schuylkill River " User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the article cited in that paper. I added information from it to Nora Thompson Dean's article and the Unami language article, which is actually quite good. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 05:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Has there ever been a welcome template inviting new editors to join WP:INPA that we could add to their talk pages? There actually are a steady stream of Native editors that show up just to write information about themselves. For instance, I made a page for Alfred Young Man, and he's added quite a bit it (maybe too much, but inexperienced editors don't immediately follow Wiki protocol). Has anyone had any luck convincing people in that position to make more widespread contributors to Wikipedia? Perhaps we could start suggesting articles they might like to contribute to. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I have tried without much success. But at least for the community articles, I found that if I start and article that is bare-bones, eventually somebody from the community adds more information. Granted, often it isn't encyclopedic in nature, but sometimes it is good quality (such as the case with Poplar River First Nation. When it is, I try to thank and encourage contributors. CJLippert ( talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Over at WikiProject Equine, where I spend most of my time, I use the {{subst:welcome}} template and add a personalized message to the end, inviting people to join that project - or whatever project that person seems to be editing in (WP horse racing, WP Montana, whatever...). Works for me, but it's like fishing, occasionally I get a nibble. More often, I am successful engaging people directly on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article they are editing. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Proposed for deleting, Category:Native American languages with mobile apps ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Proposed for deleting, Category:First Nations languages with mobile apps ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

The discussion is here, if anyone has any interest at all.... Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16#Category:Native_American_languages_with_mobile_apps

__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put in my 2-cents' worth there already. CJLippert ( talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on the recent signpost article, Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia, and on the difficulties Uyvsdi is having as he/she attempts to explain Wikipedia policies to a knowledgeable new contributor, I've added a new box to our WikiProject page.

Please feel free to modify my initial attempt at a user message as you see fit. Any discussion or ideas on how to modify our policies? Any thoughts on how to alert new contributors as to how things work here? Djembayz ( talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Making a concerted effort to welcome Native users as a group is laudable. I've gotten into the habit of welcoming the people that update tribal administrations. I've had Native students create Wikipedia articles in the past. In RL, I encourage folks to edit their tribes' articles, and if they need help, I'll help them. So completely on board with welcoming people

However, making an exception to the need for published, reliable, verifiable secondary sources does not sound like a good policy at all. The first article I ever wrote here was Thlopthlocco Tribal Town. If I can find information about the TTT, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, and the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, then yes, the information is out there. Regarding oral history, in the US, Navajo is the Native American language most likely still spoken by children as a first language. Not only do they have their own school system, they have their own publishing company. Native people can and do get articles and books published all the time; hence the length of List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas.

As past adventures with Walam Olum, Cherokee Nation of Mexico, etc. demonstrate, people do come here to push their wp:pov, wp:fringe theories, wp:self-promotion, and wp:original research. The problems I've had with the editor in question is that he initially used the following as citation:

"According to interviews with those who have at least some familiarity of the ancient language, Doris Riverbird of Quitapahilla, Pennsylvania, and Gary "Deer Standing Schreckengost" (Nee-poo Ah-too We-po-schwa-gen She-pong) of Cocalico, Pennsylvania, the Lenape term for “river” is Hanna."

Then after pointing out that one can't use an interview with oneself as a citation, he switched to books sans page numbers, then finally added page numbers and websites, but after actually looking them up, they did not back up the spellings and translations he was using. The Lenape article is too long; not too short. There's a wealth of solid information about Lenape people. The Unami language article is one of the better ones around for indigenous languages. There is a Lenape Language Program, sponsored by the Delaware Tribe of Indians, to which the last fluent speakers of Unami belonged, and they even have an online word list. The sources are all there; it's just a matter of actually using them. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I agree. It is not possible for wikipedia to make exceptions to the RS policy to accommodate native people's oral knowledge. This is unfortunate perhaps, but any such attempt would completely undermine the project and all efforts dealing with keeping different kinds of non-mainstream knowledge such as conspiracy theories or fringe political ideologies from taking over the space. There are reliable sources about these topics, and they are the ones we should use. It is of course entirely possible to have different criteria for reliable sources on other wikipedias - a separate wiki for the orally transmitted knowledge of native peoples would be an excellent idea. But the idea of wikipedia is different. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral history isn't just limited to native communities, either. Making an exception just for them really isn't the way to go. And at the rate some of this stuff is being collected and published using academic guidelines for oral history (especially by those in the sociology and anthropology fields), it's probably best to use those sources as a gateway for that information. Intothat darkness 14:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The early history of the Somena article is another case in point about that. On the other hand, though taking are not to cite himself, User:OldManRivers did sterling work on Kwakwaka'wakw and Squamish people articles and related materials; but in some cases like Nuxalk people/ Nuxalk Nation the only available materials about what is there (at least the materials that are on-line) are by the peoples themselves. Infratribal and intertribal politics often collide with Wiki principles guidelines, as with a series of edit wars by a Sinixt user vs Ktunaxa mentions on articles such as Nakusp, British Columbia and others in that region. Also on St Mary's Indian Residential School in Mission, British Columbia, a Student User (as the SPA name went) introduced a lot of badly-written and possibly copyvio material on that article (which is about the school/residence that is now the multi-band Peckquaylis reserve, which is home to educational and business enterprises. So while AUTO and COI contributions are needed, especially on remote or obscure bands like Xeni Gwet'in or articles like Caribou Hide ( Metsantan), such articles need to be watched and guided in regards to neutrality and so on..... but when an old source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia is used in RMs or its errors can be included because it seemingly is a "reliable" source (when often it's not), and local, modern sources are disputed as not being "peer reviewed"...or the mainstream media's biases are similarly presented as if factual..... yes, it's complicated..... but can't be thrown out entirely. what I think would be a better course of action is an outreach program about wikipedia in native schools and educational institutions like the St'at'imc and Secewpemc Language Education and Culture Societies so that people know the ropes...and they're the ones who would have on their shelves the necessary verifiable sources that may be out of print, for example, but are still citable as RS. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points all around. We can't pitch WP:RS and WP:V wholesale, but it is also true that some sources Skookum correctly notes that sources that appear RS but are not, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia and certain "peer reviewed" (by ignorant idiots) sources can be as problematic as any OR or Fringe source. There are parallels on wiki: For example, I have run into similar problems over at WikiProject Equine, a world where there is also a lot of oral knowledge - believe it or not, to take one you'd NEVER guess, I got into a debate at Spanish Riding School with a guy who actually rides there ( User:Conversano Isabella ) about this! They don't write down much at all! Yet, his vast knowledge is still WP:OR, he can't just insert info about how its done. Likewise, an expert on Lipizzan pedigrees is trying to set us straight at Lipizzan, but he hasn't published his research except on his web site, so there is no reliable third-party publication to cite to! These guys have unquestioned expertise. Yet, to allow otherwise, well we just had our favorite fringe editor return at Talk:Lipizzan with his usual rants about slovenian nationalism and the "true" origin of the Lipizzan horse. He'd want his piece of the pie too. (sorry, ranting...) So, I have no answers, but maybe we need to look at how WP guidelines handle primary sources in general; we should at least be able to say, "there are no published sources about X, however, in a first=person account, tribal wise person Y said..." Montanabw ^(talk) 22:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

These guys need to start writing articles in magazines or newspapers then. Which goes for many Native writers as well. Indian County Today is online and readily available to writers and researchers. While, the folks with axes to grind should start blogs. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, even that plays both ways. "Inside sources" or "internal sources" can be defined to exclude fringe theorists, whether in the case of the insider at the Lippizan school or a tribal member...but then there is such a thing as fringe theorists who are tribal members. And it's a given that e.g. in the Nuxalk case, the primary source is that authoritative source. i.e. nuxalk.net. And there are "third-party publications" recounting native oral tradition as told to the author by a native elder in the past (I could name various)(, but which are not "peer reviewed". Then there are the far-removed-from-local-authenticity academic sources as used on the Salishan oral literature page that wind up with external theories and paradigms having seeming more authenticity as sources than the original peoples might have to say about it, but which are regarded as "reliable" but really aren't (being analyses and paradigms imposed from outside). User:Somena is a member of the Somena people, who are now part of the multi-people Cowichan Tribes band government (often called "the Cowichans" but really not one people, but rather from the same area i.e. the Cowichan (Valley). Her views are radically apposite to those of the "official" band government's and of other peoples within the same group; similar User:OldManRivers is highly critical of his own band government though very authoritative ab out tribal history and language himself; but there is a claimant to a supposedly hereditary chieftaincies (such do not exist in traditional Skwxwu7mesh culture) who is decidedly fringe....and thankfully hasn't messed with any of the Skwxwu7mesh content. So far. There are radical/fringe elements within native society, as also within non-native society (the latter decided/clinched hte RM of skwxwu7mesh-squamish; this also happened on Nooksack and Noosksack language pages, and one particular long-time wikipedian held forth that it didn't matter what native peoples called themselves, it's what the books on his shelves said they should be; even denouncing their views as parochial. BUT I do think it's necessary to accommodate primary sources when validated as such e.g. a bona fide native elder, or the nuxalk.net 's site which is both elder's histories and official band-government positions (not all bands in Canada have such a convergence between "Indian Act chiefs" and traditional governance; a pointed case where this is not the case is with the Gitxsan in regards to the pipeline controversy). And some oral histories, such as Robert Bringhurst's A Story As Sharp As A Knife where Haida oral epics are given in his transductions, are condemned by actual Haida for complicated reasons I won't recount here; the same is true of Barbeau, Boas and all the rest. Some accommodation and especially outreach is needed, for sure. How to say it I don't know; how to patrol it, even dicier.... Skookum1 ( talk) 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The claim that academic approaches to ethnography are invalid because they "impose analyses and paradigms from the outside" is also itself a fringe view. It is entirely possible for both inside and outsider perspectives to be considered valid at the same time, albeit in different ways. It is also entirely possible to present the views of Bringhurst, Barbeau and Boas as well as any contradictory views that indigenous organizations or authors may have published. A Nuxalk elder and an anthropologist studying the Nuxalk have two different kinds of knowledge and as long as both are published there is nothing that currently prevents us from including both. What we don't do of course is state that because we know said elder and had a conversation with him about the topic or possibly because we grew up in the community, that we can now put information from that conversation or from our upbringing into the article and claim that our own interpretations has some kind of moral or epistemic validity. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I meant, maunus, is things like the category names Category:Haida deities and Category:Kwakwaka'wakw mythology and Category:Kwakwaka'wakw gods, where ideas of "deity" and "mythology" and "gods" do not, to me, seem suitable and are decidedly "external" in conception. This is one reason, among many, there is no "FOO chiefs" category and "FOO leaders" instead. With Sisiutl, which is a Squamish/Skwxw7mesh name, and is a double-headed serpent/sea-monster, it's included in the "Kwakwaka'wakw gods" category...... this is an example where a redirect with the Kwakwaka'wakw term to the article's section about the Kwakwaka'wakw story/being would be useful. If there is one, that is. Lumping things together in arbitrary categories named without reference to the culture's own parameters/ terminology bothers me. In English these entities are usually "spirit-beings" or something of that kind; is Coyote a "god"? Another, who doesn't have an article yet but is central to the region's mythologies no matter the language or language group, is Xals (pron "(k)hails"), the Transformer (the coastal equivalent, more or less, to Coyote's role in the Interior). Representing the indigenous culture in its own terms, vs concepts and terms from "outside" which do not fit is what I mean. And equivocating about them because some book or paper somewhere uses the "wrong" term and is therefore "valid" doesn't sit well with me at all. Skookum1 ( talk) 22:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"fringe theorists who are tribal members." -> Exactly, yes. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'd be good with the context/disclaimer idea...and this is also a problem in the role-playing game arena. For older games the print review sources are thin or non-existent outside of someone's magazine collection, and newer stuff is only really talked about or reviewed on blogs or other forbidden sources. I've also seen it in military history stuff. It's one of the dangers involved when what's claimed to be an encyclopedia starts straying into wider areas of knowledge that haven't been widely reduced to tertiary sources. Intothat darkness 22:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Native Americans are some of the most studied people, at least from an anthropological perspective, on the entire planet. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

LOL, Deloria had it right.

“	Into each life, it is said, some rain must fall. Some people have bad horoscopes, others take tips on the stock market. McNamara created TFX and the Edsel. Churches possess the real world. But Indians have been cursed above all other people in history. Indians have anthropologists.	”
—  Vine Deloria, Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins

Not that I'm cynical or anything. GregJackP  Boomer! 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor on the Reference Desk wanted to reference Native American (North American) face/body painting but found no article at war paint. There are two sentences about South American natives in the article on body painting and two pictures in Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, again South American. Nothing at all in First Nation, Native Americans in the United States or Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America. Is there no article covering this subject better? Did I forget to look some other title? Rmhermen ( talk) 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"War paint" is mostly a misnomer, arising from the Wild West Show era. Unfortunately missionaries were strongly against tattooing and body art, including face painting. Body painting is most persistent in Latin America, such as Jagua Tattoo, but some Native American/First Nations people do paint their faces for powwows. Written material is minimal, but there's a newly published book on aboriginal Native America tattoo practices, Drawing with Great Needles: Ancient Tattoo Traditions of North America, that mentions body painting as well. Perhaps Indigenous body art of the Americas would be a good candidate for an article. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It might be possible to write an article about why it is a misnomer, if there is any literature specifically treating it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perusing Google books yields almost no useful results about the term "war paint" in regards to Native Americans. If anyone did want to write about the misnomer, Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America and Native Americans in popular culture would probably be a good place for that info. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native Americans in popular culture is one I missed - and wow, is that underdeveloped and incomplete. Rmhermen ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Body painting is certainly historically important even if it isn't currently widespread. The term originates in reference to North American Indians in 1826 [3] and face and body painting are common in Bodmer's and Caitlin's painting of the 1830-40s and even in at least one Curtis photograph. Rmhermen ( talk) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's apt to be a search, we probably should find the most relevant article and do up a link at the dab page. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I added a link to body painting (which is pretty rough) to the War paint dab page. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 01:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Need more eyes on Tom Brown, Jr.. Brown has built a career on false claims to be teaching Apache traditions. It's common knowledge among Native communities that what Brown teaches bears no resemblance to anything Apache, and that his "Apache Teacher," "Grandfather Stalking Wolf," either never existed or wasn't who or what Brown claims he was. A user removed all the criticism of Brown from the article, attempting to justify it on BLP reasons. I haven't had a chance to review it all, but the criticism should be re-added, with additional sourcing if needed. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller ( talk) 09:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can always take this nonsense to the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Can always find people there willing to debunk anything. Have to be careful about drawing their attention (organic food articles take major hits from that crowd) but it's always an option. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Did that thanks. Since I started to mention this we have an editor and their IP promoting Men and busy editing anything to do with the Maya. Dougweller ( talk) 06:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Men? As in the broad topic, or something more specific? As for the Maya, sigh, fringe bait at all times, but especially since "teh" 2012 stuff... (deep, heavy, martyred sigh...) Montanabw ^(talk) 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the Maya calendar predicted the rash of Wikipedia trolling in 2012? Quick! I better write an article about that!—ayeeeeeeee. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, as they say, turns out it's not the end of the world!  ;-P Montanabw ^(talk) 00:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP  Boomer! 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've known about the need for such an article on an important Northwest Coast topic for a long time, but been stymied by not knowing what to call him/them. Turned up on Category:Native American mythology without any other category thanks to the WP:Mythology people, based on a Lummi version of the story but unreferenced because an ANI had removed Encyclopedia Mythica from use as a ref (presumably as non-RS). See Talk:Xelas for more. It would help if OldManRivers and Murderbike and other users who are indigenous from the region where this story is known were around to help; I"m thinking rather than argue over which version of the native name to use (with or without diacriticals/special characters also an issue) the usual English usage/s are what should be used; singular as he most often is, though in many stories there are three or four of him, before he was combined into one being. I've also asked the WPMythology people to add NorthAmNative and tribal categories to such articles so that they can be found and developed monitored.... Skookum1 ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP  Boomer! 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP is removing material they don't like at Legend of Rainbow Warriors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), first claiming they removed it "New age group trying to edit their way into native history, removing link as they are seperate entities from William Willoyas work" and then as racism. I don't see either of them as valid reasons to remove the material (I added the quote from Niman about the book, which " purveying "a covert anti-Semitism throughout, while evangelizing against traditional Native American spirituality." This article was a fringe mess before. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As always, just find the reliable sources and footnote up the wazoo. Puts the burden on them. If there is an actual "cultural appropriation" issue out there for the topic, find it and note it, or, as I like to say, "teach the controversy." Don't fret too much about drive-bys. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty humorous how one person will blow through an article insisting everything be changed from one term because it's offensive, then another person will swing by demanding, equally passionately, everything be changed to the other term. Usually the pendulum swings between "Native American" and "American Indian," and if it's a small mention in an article and either term is accurate, I've started letting people do what they want. Right now that's going on with Eskimo, which does need to be improved, but not necessarily in the midst of edit-warring by sockpuppets.

So, how do we collectively deal with terms that are still very viable, but less than ideal? " Sioux" is still very much in use. Marty Two Bull Sr. usually writes, "I am Oglala Lakota, which my enemies call Sioux." Over the months, I've been disambiguating between Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, and Nakoda/Assiniboine, where it's appropriate, to link other articles to the tribe in question. I've started doing this with Eskimo, trying to determine if linked articles are discussing Yup'ik or Inuit peoples (while many articles are linking to the term "Eskimo" as opposed to specific ethnic groups). So far I haven't gotten any push back, which I'm surprised by, but am curious to know other's opinions. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

LOL If you didn't get a 'pushback' then presumably nobody objects, so carry on! If you do get any 'pushback', then you can decide what to do... Or were you just bored, and hoping for some 'pushback'?! ;o) Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 17:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, good point. I guess I felt guilty because of the high emotions over "Eskimo" in the last two months, I felt like I was going in through the backdoor by rerouting links from other articles and needed absolution. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Proceed until apprehended. My own view is that it IS best to use tribal names and people's names for themselves wherever possible. My own little secret is that I've been quietly eliminating the word "Chief" from many of the articles where I stumble across it, partly per WP:HONORIFIC (we don't use honorifics on WP for the most part) and partly because most of these guys weren't properly called "Chief" anyway. There's a few where you just can't do so (notably Chief Joseph) without making the situation even worse, but absent moving the artivle to the person's actual name (and as Skookum1 points out, sometimes even that does not have consensus) there you have it. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can help chuck out unnecessary honorifics as well. If other folks have ongoing projects like this, if they want to share them here, maybe we can all help out? I need to get back on taking more photos of people, so articles can have living tribal members instead of endless Curtis images. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

For me it's sort of a hit and miss as I run across it. But I like the idea of posting about things like this. Maybe add to the project to do list? (I think there's a project to-do list...) Montanabw ^(talk) 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the dab page for Metis#Culture_groups lists three nearly identical articles? I wonder if these are sort of content forks and could be merged - I understand that there are US and Canadian groups, but seems like one comprehensive article beats three weak articles with a lot of duplication, particularly Métis, which is basically a list and Métis people (Canada) doesn't even cross-ref it. Thoughts? Montanabw ^(talk) 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples, which has been the Athabaskan Potlatch which struck me as a misnomer, and there are other cultures/peoples who also need coverage; the main Potlatch article is for now almost entirely about the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch. See my various comments. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The name also struck me as the title of someone's book, and the capital-p had to go per MOS, and what I changed it to was to match the necessary grammar/bold of the opening sentence of the lede per MOS, which I adjusted as you will see in the history. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proceed until apprehended; seems like a WP:BB situation to me. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I did the name change, or a version of it, and there's various comments on the talkpage. Both this and the current Potlatch article need a lot of work/additions because of the wide range of peoples and different types of potlatch. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping my talk directly if you need more bodies to show up and comment. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I just ascertained, after countless maintenance edits since this was first approved and made its appearance (including edits from me) that the sources given are two curriculum pages - "not reliable sources".... never mind that mergeto Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is the obvious thing to do. Seems to me these were a class project - ?? I'll get to it in the morning, unless someone else would care to launch the merge discussion in the meantime. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck I'll just do it now; in the middle of interminably long scans. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Proceed until apprehended. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this right now, was just cruising some minor edits and noticed the absence of any discussion of the Royal Proc on this page, and that only AADNC is used as a source for background etc., which is more than somewhat POV in flavour. See Talk:Douglas_Treaties#no_mention_of_Royal_Proc.3F.3F. Maybe in a month or two, if I'm still around, but this is a glaring omission...and there's digression about Blanshard in the article, who really had nothing to do with them. Skookum1 ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Gingolx,_British_Columbia#addition_of_pronunciation_tag. I know I've made this comment before, maybe not here in IPNA though. And it's not just about native articles, it's across the board. Why demand someone else do something that it only takes a few minutes to do yourself, if you weren't just spending your time dropping templates like bird-poo? And don't anybody WP:AGF on me about this, I see more template-dropping than I do article expansion, 95% of the time. Skookum1 ( talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, the tag monsters are afoot! I think there is some guild or copyeditors contest going on or something, not sure, but 'tis The Little Red Hen season. In solidarity and agreement with your frustration, I will provide you with the ultimate tag that I keep on my talk page and that should at least put a smile back on your face Montanabw ^(talk) 06:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC):

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

"Like" (not sure if there's a quasi-FB tag). Skookum1 ( talk) 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

heh: Like Montanabw ^(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Djembayz ( talk) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Several users have been trying to remove the New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans website from such articles as Plastic shaman and Chuluaqui-Quodoushka‎, for some time. Personally, I see them as the best source of information about faux medicine people on the web, but of course such discussion is very contentious and the people mentioned on the site understandably decry it on blogs throughout the interwebs. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" is listed under [WP:ELMAYBE "Links to be considered"]. The site explains its organization, explains the issues, links to other resources, and has a forum for discussion, so in my mind, that makes it a valid external link; however, what do other people think? - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Valid, though easier to keep if it is actually used to footnote material in a given article. Some people take WP:ELNO to an extreme for no particular ideological reason. When I run across one of those, I just toss the link onto the talk page until or unless I can work it into the article, it is much more difficult to remove. So shoot us links where needed. The group looks like a Native version of snopes.com and they are extensively linked, mostly to blogs, but some mainstream works also. Per WP:NEWSBLOG I think we can easily establish notability. Also wise to look at contribs of people removing the links. Note it linked here [4] and here: [5], Montanabw ^(talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info, especially WP:NEWSBLOG, since many blogs actually *are* the best source of information on the web about certain topics. Cheers, - Uyvsdi ( talk) 01:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Comment below is reposted. Djembayz ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This submission is relevant to the Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This one needs some mentoring, although I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Plastic shaman was nominated for deletion. The article has been around for six years and is well cited, but if any of you care to comment, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

See the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Template:Paganism. It's inclusion in Template:Paganism has been challenged at Template talk:Paganism but hasn't been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The usage of Indian Scout (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics has been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. The nominator is comparing the category tree to that of Category:France. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Massive revamping of IPA and INPA categorization, anyone? I'm not chomping at the bit to bring this about, but it appears other folks are up for it. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As The Little Red Hen would say, who is going to help? Montanabw ^(talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

apparently rather than massive revamping of categories is not as preferable to you as piecemeal revamping of individual categories on subjects you know nothing about...... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have found an artifact belonging to the Clovis culture. It is n arrowhead measuring 3 inches high and 1 1/2 inches wide in the middle. My question is how an I find out if it is authentic Clovis and has there ever been Clovis artifacts found in NJ? Thank you. 2601:C:5900:539:B10C:E966:D5FD:FB9A ( talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good question to pose to www.reddit.com. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tsuu_T'ina_Nation#proposed_split. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Faced with recalcitrant responses from the re-creator of the unworkable category name Category:Squamish I have had to start a CfD on this again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Given the new item in MOS about respecting the original creator's wishes, I'm pondering also doing another RM for Squamish people to move it back to where OldManRivers created it, because of [ "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" now in MOS, i.e. Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or adopting a simplified Skwxwu7mesh and let the categories fall into line appropriately, though whether the use of Skwxwu7mesh language script for a title is part of "style" we'll see.. Guidelines applied in isolation from realities and the need for informed exceptions in this case and others suggest that all such titles should be WP:SALTed so that things cannot be so arbitrarily upset again in future. Ignoring CfD outcomes is "not on"...or should I just ignore the CfD, the old one of the new one, and just start the category title *I* think should be used (and I'm from BC, not from Nevada, and know the subject matter in question first-hand). Skookum1 ( talk) 07:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, Skookum, per WP:CANVASS, you really should just post a link to the conversation here, not the arguments also. It's also a good idea to avoid commentary about other individuals with words like "recalcitrant." You are BOTH good editors with a simple difference of opinion. I will post my own thoughts over at the CfD and other project members are also welcome to do so. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This was posted on the same day and within minutes of starting the CfD; I had already tried to negotiate with Usyvdi about speedy renaming the category to something useful because of the problems posed by her reviving one that consensus had rightfully done away with, but she refused and told me she wanted to hear what other editors have to say. I've heard what they have to say, and other than what the other Canadian editors who do get the PRIMARYTOPIC problem that doesn't seem to register on the rest of them, they're all making judgements that don't work and which are based in half-understandings of what's going on. Unlike some who ram through RMs and CfDs without telling related WikiProjects, I believe in letting people know what's going on behind their backs..... the idea that RMs and CfDs wind up being discussed by the same crew, no matter what the topic, and that enlisting input from people who might have a stake in the outcome, or might know better than the cabal that lurks around CfDs/RMs etc, is against the rules; but so is ignoring a CfD and creating a category a CfD had done away with as not-viable. Notifying Wikiprojects of CfDs/RMs that concern them is not "canvassing" - it should be standard practice; though I've often heard gloats about this or that RM/CfD of the sort that "no we didn't have to let anyone know so we didn't". At least I'm honest, which I can't say for various others. Skookum1 ( talk) 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are supposed to do is just post the link with a neutral comment (like the Indian Scout post below). You aren't supposed to state your position, especially with negative comments about another user. Voice of experience here, I got slapped pretty smartly for doing this once, so just friendly advice. As for the rest, that particular situation has gotten so complicated that I can't even follow it anymore, I have no time to read walls of text. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a move discussion at Talk:The Red Road. Also may need to be some repair work at the red road, article is poorly sourced and a bit OR-ish. Thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There are various open RMs addressing reverting native-name titles from "FOO people" forms where FOO="anglicism" ; all but one were changed by speedy renaming alleging 'common name' and 'English' but that argument was fallacious when it was made. Some of these - all but one here are main ethno articles - if not changed may result in "uncomfortable" and geographically-ambiguous/archaic category names in Category:First Nations in British Columbia:

• Owekeeno people -> Wuikinuxv ( Category:Wuikinuxv)
• Okanagan people -> Syilx ( Category:Syilx)
• Sechelt people -> Shishalh (category does not exist yet Category:Shishalh)
• Stawamus -> Sta7mes is not a main article but if it is not reverted to its original state will set a precedent for other 'not English' spellings in other villages within what is for now Category:Squamish people

I speedy moved Comox people to K'omoks and created Category:K'omoks due to (a) geographic name confusion with the Town of Comox and (b) to match the other main-ethno article titling convention; it may need adjusting as the K'omoks name may not apply to the Sliammon (Tla'amin) and Homalco, they may require separate categories in the long run. In some cases this is not possible as there is no standard native-name romanization of e.g. Musqueam people (Hwmethkwyem is what's on their current band site (when romanized, it includes a theta, for example, in the orthodox Hulquminum, but as I recall there another somewhat different version that perhaps was favoured by a different band government; still worth considering Hwmethkwyem though, relative to consistency with other ethno article. Sts'Ailes has been around for a while, as Chehalis people is far and away more likely to be taken for the group in Washington. I also successfully to the category for Danezaa to match that title, it was at "Dunneza" which is an Albertan spelling but not the most common form; Category:Beaver people would invite too many jokes and has that "FOO people" problem too. Category:Saanich is not viable for the Saanich people (WSANEC) for the same reason that Category:Squamish cannot be for the Skwxwu7mesh; major geographic name collision; which is why T'zouke was coined for Sooke, Tz'uminus for Chemainus, and so on; for Semiahmoo the native form is SEMYOME but there are only three articles there so far (band, people, reserve) and unlikely to be subcategories. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed RMs

• Carrier people -> Dakelh closed in favour of Dakelh due to (a) "Carrier" does not include all Dakelh and (b) RS favour Dakelh
• Squamish people -> Skwxwu7mesh closed due to an alleged COMMONNAME decision and a "unanimous" (except for me) "votes" against; that the realities of the RS now favour Skwxwu7mesh was not admitted or acknowledged by the "voters" and this RM, like its predecessor, was closed as quickly as possible and any chance for more input from other editors silenced; I've been told to take it to MoveReview which I will try but I note there that the actual facts don't matter as much as the "conduct" and "tone" of the application to review; I'll do the best to restrain myself in pointing out that the COMMONNAME claim was fallacious and mistaken on the part of the closer, and that points I made about consistency or main ethno-article titles in the same topic area and more from WP:UCN which gets glossed over and ignored (as pointed out on Talk:Stawamus).
• Another current RM for Squamish -> Squamish (disambiguation) and Squamish, British Columbia -> Squamish on PRIMARYTOPIC grounds has been opposed on the premise that the town is not the primarytopic, despite overwhelming RS/google proof that it clearly is (as nearly anybody who speaks Canadian English or is from BC knows...). Unique Canadian town names are un-disambiguated by standing convention; Chemainus is another similar case like Sechelt where the town has no disambiguation and the related ethno article is, or should be at, the native name.

I'm of the opinion that the needless addition of "people" to Tsimshian people, Haida people, Gitxsan people, Tahltan people, Nisga'a people and more should be taken off; the FOO people problem is why someone, who didn't know about the town (and didn't care, as it turns out) re-created Category:Squamish after that was nixed by a CfD and Category:Squamish people hijacked (temporarily) for "people who are Squamish"; clarity, conciseness and consistency, three of the five characteristics in WP:UCN about titles, are not well-served; nor is brevity, as the addition of "people" was completely pointless; various mini-disambiguation pages were created by one of the resident amateur linguists on the premise that the languages were equally primarytopic to the people, which is not demonstrably the case. Another of these, outside BC, is Mi'kmaq which was turned into a disambiguation page by that same editor and the main article is now at Mi'kmaq people though the category remains at Category:Mi'kmaq (and where there is a Category:Mi'kmaq people for "people who are Mi'kmaq").

Trying to correct the item-by-item one-by-one attack on native names on these articles has proven to be exhaustive and I have been made the butt of attacks because of my writing/information style, and the RMs invariably draw in people who don't know the subject matter and only field their pet guidelines (even when they're wrong about them) and also who have no appreciation, even an antipathy, for indigenous languages and indigenous preferences. The lack of guidelines in this area, which I tried to propose here but was shot down, remains a big hole in IPNA and without them, more wrecking-crew changes by those wanting to "anglicize" names unfamiliar to them will continue. The nominator of the first RM on Talk:Squamish people even used a pejorative, derisive tone about the name Skwxwu7mesh - that it was "gibberish" - and there was at least one person in that RM didn't even know who the Skwxwu7mesh were, he thought the RM was about the Suguamish and had no clue about the town of Squamish at first.

I've done what I can to preserve the integrity of the naming convention evolved at the time these articles/categories were created with native names, but have found myself the target of hostility and rejection for no reason related at all to the subject matter; "TLDR" is used as an excuse to not read or respond to the response I make to simplistic points which, being simplistic, gloss over complexities and persistently ignore the established support for native names not just in the old consensus, but in the results of last year's RMs on St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa all of which were successsful. The "working/talking in a bubble" aspect of one-by-one CfDs and RMs done in isolation from the precedent-setting ones listed fails to address the full context of such articles/categories and exemplifies narrow-view decision-making at its worst; not having any regard for consequences....or conventions/consistency. Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Two Four other related RMs, where the town is the PRIMARYTOPIC so should have the undisambiguated title currently occupied by a dab page; Lillooet I may file a similar RM for; these are the current RMs to strip unneeded, against-convention comma-province dabs from unique town names and all are rooted in anglicized versions of the local band/people name:

• Squamish
• Comox - the FN people are the K'omoks now
• Chemainus the FN people are the Stz'uminus now
• Sooke - the FN people are the T'souke now

More may come. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

side comment

Yes, I'm tired of it all, and aghast at the way I've been treated and my ideas not just ignored but insulted. "Get a life" was taunted at me about the whole schlemozzle about Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh, and my invitation to the above-listed RMs at that editor's page (which she deleted with the "get a life" comment, even though being the one who set the cat among the pigeons by barging into BC FN categories by ignoring consensus and creating Category:Squamish), but does anyone reprimand them for NPA or AGF or CIVIL? Trying to talk common sense and being responded with by ignorance and insults is needless to say very grating, and the obstructionist nature of wikipedia bureacracy and the contrarian, hidebound narrow-minded cabals that hang around the various procedures pages is becoming more and more clear to me. All very disappointing....and tiresome. Why do people have to vote on things they don't want to learn about (TLDR, y'know), and scream "personal attack" when someone points out that they're wrong about what they're saying, yet engage in personal attacks in the course of doing that??? Skookum1 ( talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

RMs to try to deal with the "FOO people" problem underway; only 120 so far, probably about the same yet to go. Some "FOO tribe" ones were not for federally-recognized tribes e.g. Nespelem tribe and Sanpoil tribe which are part of the Colville Confederacy. Others never were federally-recognized tribes at all, and the names are so unique no disambigution with "tribe" was ever needed. Here are the four talkpages with 30 RMs each:

• Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move - notes for the whole group, i.e. the three following, are made here.
• Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move
• Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move
• Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move

In those cases where the move target is a dab page I have added an RM to move that to "FOO (disambiguation)". In many cases the target is already a redirect to the current article, an indication of how unnecessary all these moves were; and adding "people" fails "Concisness" as per WP:UCN. The "FOO people" paradigm is for "individuals who are FOO", as noted by a certain editor re a certain botched category move now at CfD. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The red road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could use a review. I've raised some issues at Talk:The red road. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, seems like targeting me and being insecure about long passages of responses detailing why bad ideas are bad ideas is a successful tactic, and we still have this problem category that was moved/changed by people who aren't even from the area or know anything about the topics at hand. The "Squamish" and "Squamish (disambiguation) RMs were non-admin closed despite other similar RMs on primarytopic=town have gone through, in many cases items of the very same kind. See Category_talk:Squamish_people#Re_the_2nd_CfD for other comments. Rather than complain about me writing in paragraphs instead of bullet points, I really think a lot of people in Wikipedia should start taking remedial reading..... and that they shouldn't "vote" on CfDs and RMs until they're knowledgeable about the subject at hand. "Waaah he uses big words and long sentences" is not an adequate excuse for not educating themselves as they should instead of complaining "I don't have time, but I want to make a vote based on a guideline I think is mandatory". This was wiki-lawyering of the worst kind but typical of the legal world also; don't examine the evidence, attack the proponent. Content and titles are suffering. What's up next? A MoveReview on all three of Squamish people, Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia at the same time to get them jointly relisted so a long hard look at the primarytopic nature of the town and the pattern of endonym titles that was SO OBVIOUS......ah, well, this'll be snitted at as another "wall of text" and it's a tiresome thing to be around people writing an encyclopedia that don't have the attention span to be able to read your average articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt any of these people could handle reading a 19th Century novel or a philosophical treatise.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MoveReview, of course, is not written about reasons or logics that the decision was wrong; it's primarily about etiquette and conduct, rather than content or rationales or the actual reality of the real world; it's an inner/higher level of Wikipedia that's even more strictured than first-tier procedure; I'm probably hooped there too huh? This is not over, that's all I can say. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Could use more eyes on James Arthur Ray. I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV ^☊ 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I started four articles a couple of weeks ago, which have received repeated tagging. I don't have enough time right now to give them the attention as they deserve. If anyone has the time or knowledge to help out, it would be appreciated. Thanks,   ~ E.N.Stanway ( talk) 04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

You need to understand that one line BLPs actually need maintenance tags. Dougweller ( talk) 14:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And by doing so, sometimes others will stop by to help. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami User:Skookum1 has noted to me your edit "this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" can you please link here to previous discussion, or preferably RfC. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In any such debate, reference should be made to the various RMs listed in my reply below, and also to open RMs on the same issue cf Wuikinuxv, Shishalh etc. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The "discussion" in question is re [ this edit and per what is now titled, per the band's own website's preference and usage, Talk:Tsuutina_language. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking me about Skookum's POV, so I'm not sure how to respond. — kwami ( talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

kwami

No, I'm asking you what I asked you. Please re-read it if it is not clear. Thank you. In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it might be the same thing you asked on my talk page, but even after reading it several times I can't be sure. — kwami ( talk) 14:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

POV? No, facts on the ground per modern Canadian English and cultural values; your attitude that these do not matter as you often state is in direct contravention of WP:ETHNICGROUP:

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.:

This is an important and thoughtful - modern - guideline you have persistently ignored while touting and flouting your own self-authored one while doing scads of undiscussed moves, some of which I managed to get reverted despite your determined efforts to block me St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa, Tsilhqot'in sound familiar? Dakelh, another one of your undiscussed moves, was also recently reverted by a wise editor who understood the differences laid out by the article's founder and which you should have known yourself. The POV is yours, that these names in modern English do not matter and only your academic/obsolete terms should prevail. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Start again

Kwami, here you removed the db template Skookum put on K'omoks, with "remove db notice; this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" as the reason. Please link to existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and demonstrate that it is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" In ictu oculi ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Re that redlink, I've been planning not just a writeup on native endonym adoption into Canadian English, now prevalent in more provinces than just British Columbia (and pretty much "law" in the territories in fact), but also on other Canadian and some specifically-BC conventions that are "in place" and should be codified, and certain usages unique to each province (in BC's case, that's such as capitalizing the "I" on "the Island" when it's Vancouver Island being referred to, likewise "the City" or "the District" when a particular government's actions or position is being mentioned as in the City of Vancouver, the District of Squamish, the Village of Anmore etc., and the capitalization of names such as the Interior and its children, the Southern Interior, Central Interior, and the Coast and North Coast/South Coast/Central Coast ("West Coast" refers to the outer coast of Vancouver Island - in BC; in the rest of Canada they use that to refer to teh whole of BC, not just the part we call "the Coast" - which includes Vancouver); likewise South Island, Mid-Island, North Island - those are all proper names here and are capitalized). Skookum1 ( talk)

So it's not just the adoption of native endonyms and language names (Halkomelem, Kwak'wala and others) that distinguish Canadian English from other national varieties of English; but those are all definitely part of current media, political, and cultural reality here. Wikipedia is not supposed to homogenize English, which is the gist and the outcome of the claim that there should be no special exceptions for Canadian English - which is a concept in fact against the guidelines - but that is waht is being argued by the "one size fits all" crowd. I've avoided starting the necessary RM about Category:Power stations in Canada -> Category:Generating stations in Canada partly for arguments along that line which saw a previous CfD fail; and since that time to grant an exception to American English re Category:Power plants in the United States, has also been changed, by this CfD and without much wide discussion and with many false claims such as 1/3 of US article saying "power stations" which in fact they do not), to "[[:Category:Power stations in the United States" which though it does occur here and there in North America, is very pointedly a British usage;even the Americans tend t o use "generating station" more and as observed by some and others I know "power station" in North America means a substation, not a generating plant....but that usage has now imposed globally "by conensus" despite false claims and faulty logic and "one size fits all" mantras....but that should "not be the way Wikipedia works".... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It was me who removed the db template Kwami place peremptorily on K'omoks in the course of trying to get around my undiscussed-but-consistent-with-similar-topics move for other Canadian/BC ethno article titles; I just tried finding my removal of it on K'omoks's file history....or my user contributions...I'll find it later, I need dinner. The creation of Comox (temp) and then Comox/temp was way outside of process; gee, if I'd known that game I would have done that to all these redirects-to-current-title problems without bringing this to RM as has ultimately come to be the case; all set in motion because Uysvdi averred that "FOO people" means "people who are FOO" per her hijacking of Category:Squamish from Category:Squamish people. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's "interesting" that someone complaining about a "multitude" of RMs as "disruptive" in the course of defending his own "multitude" of undiscussed moves; going so far as to use sandbox changes to try and revert a name change he is prejudiced against (per his ow comments about my "prejudices" that's highly ironic...but as always not surprising. Oh, found his placing of the template in the course of that; my edit removing it is at right. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove a template there.

• • • Ict, if I may call you that for short (means "one" in Chinook Jargon, by the way, or as suffix e.g. klimmin (steal) vs kliminawhit (a thief, one who steals), those conventions are evident in Category:First Nations in British Columbia and if you take the time to read the RMs from las year as listed you will see that consensus did agree, ultimately, with the cultural and political reality of embracing the modern, native-preferred usages, as also does WP:ETHNICGROUP. The RMs are long, but you will find comments from Terry Glavin and also an essay from a federal translation service person about using native names in preference to older/academic/colonialist ones. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Link from here? It sounds like you're asking me to create a WP article about my opinions, which would not be appropriate.

Why BC English? This isn't BC Wikipedia. See WP:commonality. — kwami ( talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cute but typically snide.....duh, BC English is part of Canadian English and modern Canadian English norms prevail per CANENGL and the results/precedents recognized in those RMS last year. WP:Commonality cannot override national varieties of English, much as you'd like to claim it does. Your parochial attitude towards Canadian English and aboriginal endonyms is more than tiresome. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Even though such a topic is tied to Canada, we should keep in mind that Wikipedia's audience is worldwide. If something is very specific to Canadian English, or even one form of Canadian English, we should avoid using it, because it is hard to use/understand for most of our audience. -- JorisvS ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I linked to the wrong section. Finish. No further questions. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I know User:Kmoksy has taken my lead and added "Expand [other-language)" to various articles, and like me has been creating stubs for this purpose; turns out that they don't do a lot of name-disputes and don't focus primarily on languages for said groups, as is too often the case in Wikipedia IMO. Largely I'm targeting those expand-from templates towards ethnographic titles, though the German articles for example mostly address language as well, as do Turkish and Croatian ones; the depth of coverage is very interesting, and in some cases there are articles for peoples whose names/existence have never appeared on Wikipedia to date; until now.

The ones I remember starting, at this point, are

• Pauquachin
• Lamalcha for the German article "Hwlitsum", I created also the Hwlitsum First Nation stub; their organization has not yet been recognized legally as a band government, so I didn't categorize it in Category:Coast Salish governments. Theirs is a very interesting story; worth a read; I added some at more length than other stubs, partly because the story is "why" they were never given reserves or a band government (they humiliated the Royal Navy, for starters...)
• Snokomish, a vanished Halkomelem-speaking people who were neighbours to the Semiahmoo
• Gwat'sinux‎ aka Quatsino, who have a band article but no ethnographic title like some other Kwakwaka'wakw groups
• Hesquiaht

There's more, none I can recall at the moment. Looking through the German categories for adjoining states and provinces, there's other titles/subjects we don't have, some with great coverage.....not sure which User:Kmoksy has started, but perhaps if he reads this he may list his; I'll look around our "to do" lists and see how to add a continent-wide project on this; the European Wikipedias are a goldmine IMO, and can help cover and flesh out the host of "people" stubs out there. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The pages that very large information for native peoples and languages of Americas on Turkish Wikipedia (I wrote):

1. tr:Eskimo - Aleut halkları = Eskimo–Aleut peoples
2. tr:Eskimo dondurması (qualified) = Akutaq
3. tr:Yupikler (not completed) = Central Alaskan Yup'ik people
4. tr:Yupik maskeleri (qualified) = Yup'ik masks
5. tr:Qaspeq (stub) = Kuspuk
6. tr:Nunivak Çupikleri (qualified) = Nunivak Cup'ig people
7. tr:Supikler = Alutiiq people
8. tr:Supikçe = Alutiiq language
9. tr:Awa’uq Katliamı (qualified) = Awa'uq Massacre
10. tr:Sibirya Yupikleri (qualified) = Siberian Yupik people
11. tr:İnyupikler (qualified) = Inupiat people
12. tr:İnyupik Tarih, Dil ve Kültür Komisyonu = Iñupiat History, Language and Culture Commission
13. tr:Nunamiutlar = Nunamiut
14. tr:Siglit İnuitleri (stub) = Siglit people
15. tr:Nattilik İnuitçesi (stub) = Natsilik subdialect of Netsilik dialect
16. tr:Arviligjuaq İnuitçesi (stub) = Arviligjuaq subdialect of Netsilik dialect
17. tr:Kar gözlüğü (qualified) = Inuit snow goggles
18. tr:Kar ayakkabısı (esp. section Etnografya) = Snowshoe (esp. section North American indigenous peoples)
19. tr:Alaska Eskimoları (stub) = Alaskan Eskimos
20. tr:Alaska Kızılderilileri (stub) = Alaskan Indians
21. tr:Atabasklar (not completed) = Athabaskan-speaking peoples
22. tr:Kuzey Atabaskları (stub) = Northern Athabaskans
23. tr:Alaska Atabaskları (qualified) = Alaskan Athabaskans
24. tr:Ahtnalar (qualified) = Ahtna people
25. tr:Guçinler (qualified) = Gwich'in people
26. tr:Hanlar (Alaska) (qualified) = Hän people
27. tr:Holikaçuklar (qualified) = Holikachuk people
28. tr:Koyukonlar (qualified) = Koyukon people
29. tr:Poldine Carlo = Poldine Carlo
30. tr:Mary TallMountain = Mary TallMountain (she is a Koyukon poet and writer)
31. tr:Kızılderili dondurması = Indian ice-cream (Alaska) ≠ Indian ice-cream (Canada)
32. tr:Kanada Atabaskları = Canadian Athabaskans
33. tr:Yukon Yerli Dil Merkezi = Yukon Native Language Center
34. tr:Yukon Atabaskları (stub) = Yukon Athabaskans
35. tr:Sahtular = Sahtu people
36. tr:Britanya Kolumbiyası Atabaskları (stub) = British Columbian Athabaskans
37. tr:Sayisi Deneleri (qualified) = Sayisi Dene
38. tr:Pasifik Atabaskları (stub) = Pacific Coast Athabaskan peoples
39. tr:Güney Atabaskları (stub) = Southern Athabaskan peoples (Apache & Navajo)
40. tr:İç Tlingitleri = Inland Tlingit people
41. tr:Yuki Soykırımı (qualified) = Yuki Genocide
42. tr:ABD Kızılderili katliamları (esp. coloured table) = Indian massacre
      Massacres of Indians by European-Americans
      Massacres of Indians by European-Americans with Indian allied
      Massacres of European-Americans by Indians
      Massacres of Indians by Indians
43. tr:Meksika Kızılderili katliamları (not completed) = Indian massacre (Mexico)

-- Kmoksy ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you for compiling that list; had I not been busy elsewhere with "certain matters" I would have compiled one for German Wikipedia as well. In re some of these e.g. tr:İç Tlingitleri I note there is no interwiki to the English version; there is a title at Inland Tlingit or Inland Tlinkit already though; the "people" dab in your redlink is unnecessary as this is more than one people it also implies a "peoples" dab, if anything. That the phrase "the Inland Tlingit" needs no clarification when said in English means that no such dab is required at all. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see and comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Could we get a hand at determining if this article should be accepted? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chaveyo. Thanks for the help, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At this year's Native American Literature Symposium, there was a presentation panel called "Wikindigenous: Creating Space For Native American Writing". There was tremendous interest with this panel, and hopefully we have convinced enough people to join WP:IPNA and begin writing and expanding on topics that we cover. Additionally, a wonderful suggestion was made that in the future NALS venues, there ought to be a Wikipedia Editathon activity hosted. I have great hopes. Are there any other venues you can think of that may bring in more IPNA-topic experts to join and contribute to our efforts here? CJLippert ( talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/NMAI COMM535 2014 was successful. Have there been any pdf/handouts made to invite/introduce people to Wikipedia? There's a lot of resources once you join, but it's a challenge to get people to make the step of creating an account. I'm part of a panel in a Native conference next week that features several language groups, so would be happy to hand out fliers for the English Wikipedia and Indigenous language Wikis start are still going. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Two-Spirit could use more Native eyes on it, and Two-Spirit identity theory probably needs to be massively cut down, any relevant content left merged into the main article, then the latter turned into a redirect. See talk pages of both articles. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aboriginal Will-Making. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently with have the Anishinaabe project, which is a daughter project of IPNA, thus its shortcut is WP:IPNA/Nish. In the past, we have also talked about having other daughter projects. But as it seems no body is volunteering, I wonder if we can scope and identify potential participants by surveying the topical articles and sending a note to the editors of those articles. One such daughter project that was suggested in the past was one that covers the Eskimoan peoples: Aleut, Yupik, Iñupiat, Inuvialuit, Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Kalaallit. Should I try this scoping process going and see if we can get dedicated people who are knowledgeable in that topic area to systematically evaluate and identify articles relating to these arctic peoples? CJLippert ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already WP:WikiProject Arctic and WP:WikiProject Greenland, which, like so many other WikiProjects, have fallen silent in recent years. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 05:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

See [6] and [7]. North American Na-Dene family (traditionally spoken in Alaska, Canada and parts of the present-day U.S.) and the Asian Yeneseian family are said to "both appear to descend from an ancestral language that can be traced to the Beringia region. Both Siberia and North America, it seems, were settled by the descendants of a community that lived in Beringia for some time. In other words, Sicoli says, "this makes it look like Beringia wasn't simply a bridge, but actually a homeland—a refuge, where people could build a life." Which links to other recently reported research. Dougweller ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had been known and undisputed for at least 45 years that Na-Dene is related to Yenisean, but I did notice that this was recently reported as if it were breaking news or something... I might be missing something, but what exactly is new here? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I just learned from Dené–Yeniseian languages that much work has been done more recently, but I'm sure I first heard of this connection in the 1968 Britannica... Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis is victory of Edward J. Vajda (2008). But, writer Joseph Stromberg not used to name "Vajda"; very interesting! Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's phylogenetic research is exceptional evidence for this hypothesis. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Merritt Ruhlen - The origin of the Na-Dene. long Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 13994–13996, November 1998. Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford. -- Moxy ( talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruhlen's Dene-Yeniseian (included Haida) is worn and Vajda's Dene-Yeniseian (excluded Haida) is current -- Kmoksy ( talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the Beringian origin new? It's also interesting because of recent work suggesting that there was a long stay in Beringia before humans moved on to the Americas - and some back-migrated. Dougweller ( talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Dougweller, the back-migration from Center Beringia to inland Siberia is new. Thanks, Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton, thanks. Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's this phylogenetic research is very very valuable and unmatched and need to transfer to the page (but my English is not enough). -- Kmoksy ( talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

- For some odd reason the link above does not work for me. Is it clear that they say "CENTRAL Beringian - as in whats under water now". The old papers suggest they were from the bering Strait coast line after the area was under water again - thus to most implying boat based people. Is the new paper pushing the date back to when the land bridge was still there? -- Moxy ( talk) 00:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First, they say "Our goal here is not to address the validity of the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis nor the type of linguistic data used to support it. Rather, we address the questions of what it means for migration theories if the DY connection is true and how we can rigorously test hypotheses relating linguistic dispersals with population migrations." They say "in Beringia" and "While we propose the first linguistically grounded argument for radiation out of Beringia, Tamm et al. [38] have proposed a strikingly parallel set of claims using mtDNA markers to argue for a “Beringian Standstill” before both a rapid early coastal migration into North America and back-migrations from Beringia into Asia." There's also a map with arrows which start within the Beringian refuge. Dougweller ( talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Just as I suspected, So on the surface they present it as just more work on the Na-Dene-Yenisean connection, but with that statement it becomes obvious that inside the Trojan horse they are trying to implant the notion that all the other unrelated language groups of North America must have also had the same origin. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Because I have and I can't see what you are suggesting in the article. What have I missed? The languages in the illustrations don't include the ones I presume you are talking about. Dougweller ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This first came to my attention a couple weeks ago when I saw it reported as a major breaking headline in the lamestream idiot media, "AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES NOW PROVED TO BE RELATED TO RUSSIAN!" No, I am not kidding. When I read the article with that headline, I saw it was the same Na-Dene-Yenisean connection I have read about all my life. But you see what neurons they are attempting to rearrange here, the theme of all these articles is "This discovery would serve as final proof once and for all, that ALL native Americans migrated by walking from Siberia, and it puts to rest once and for all the silly notion that any native Americans could have been intelligent enough to have any concept of what a 'boat' is." Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're seeing conspiracies where they don't exist. Anyone ignorant enough to think Yeniseian means Russian surely hasn't a clue about the different hypotheses of how people first arrived in America, let alone is actively propagating one of them through some hidden agenda. — kwami ( talk) 04:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? You are the first one to mention that term. There has got to be a perfectly logical reason why persons of such intellectual merit are the ones being selected to compose lamestream media headlines. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 11:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

THE ORIGIN OF THE SPIRIT (SOUL)

       Before written history, man, trying to explain the world around them, relied on story telling, song, dance and poems. Man tried to make sense of its environment. In terms of evolution the "caveman" was as intelligent as we are, but did not have the knowledge, about nature, that we have now

     Walking past the "Spirit Catcher", a sculpture on the shores of Kempenfelt Bay in Barrie, Ontario, Canada, I pondered over its name, it was a "wind" catcher. It looks like a stylized bird with "feathers" which move in the wind. It occurred to me that in native folklore, the wind was considered a spirit. This started a train of thought that intrigued me ever since.

          The wind was a force one could feel, but not see, one could see what the wind did. It was an invisible force that could not be controlled and was a very mighty force, or spirit ruling the earth.  When a baby was born, a small part of that spirit "breath" would enter the body and gave the baby life. God breathes life into Adam’s nostrils (Genesis 2#7). When some one died this small spirit or soul would leave the body and rejoined the Big Spirit. A baby was therefore not considered to be a separate human being until it had taken its first breath. This is still considered to be the case in some cultures. In Denmark some will still open the window when someone dies to let the “spirit” out. Some religions have now changed this concept quite recently and consider that a human embryo is the start of an independent life. Keep in mind that the opposition to birth control and abortion has little to do with a "moral" principle but rather with a method to create as many followers in the tribe as possible and thus making it stronger. To infer that "breath" was the soul was a very logical explanation. The word “spirit” is derived from latin “spiritus” meaning “breath” and “spirare” meaning “breathe”. Consider the fact that breath, spirit, soul and ghost are words essentially meaning the same thing throughout history. It is still with us. Ghosts, spirits are still associated with chilly, drafty air flows.

Ben Andrews, benjaminandrews@mac.com April 24, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.9.8 ( talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Has a virtually empty section saying the main article is Medicine Societies - have we actually got a relevant article? Dougweller ( talk) 17:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently one of the most populous in the US, but the box give one third the population that the text does, supposedly from the same census. Needs to be updated and footnoted anyway. — kwami ( talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, glad you noticed that. Feel free to fix! Montanabw ^(talk) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons has a number of newly uploaded old images related to the subject of this project at [8]. Many are uncategorized and might find a use in various articles. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Had a look through them; some of the terms used in titles are a bit embarrassing.... "Nootka belle", "Siwash woman and child" (at least it didn't say "squaw", though)..... the Cowichan Warrior one is pretty cool, but I'd hesitate to know which ethno page to put it on in case the individual in question isn't from one of the seven groups forming today's Cowichan Tribes band government, and not Halalt or Penelakut or Malahat or another Cowichan people who are not part of that band (whose name really infers "tribes in the Cowichan Valley" rather than Cowichan as a people-name). Main comment here, though, is that quite often indigenous and other editors opine that there is too much emphasis places on individuals and lifestyles of bygone times, i.e. on band government articles, instead of pictures of modern life and individuals; so all these should be used judiciously; I'm fairly familiar with the Commons category-names so will have a go at categorizing them soon. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)