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 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

The Native American section of the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article could use some scrutiny. I tweaked a few words, but the section needs a re-write. There are some inaccuracies about blood quantum and tribal citizenship. The bit about Native Americans being classified as white in Oklahoma could use some clarification. The claim that an increase in self-identification as Native American among white people is due to a push back against blood quantum is just bunk. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 09:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

While I'm in the neighborhood, took a peek at the part of that article more in my own area of expertise. It had an obviously suspicious claim—that, 11 years after Wong Kim Ark, Jews feared denaturalization if they were labeled "Asiatic"—which indeed failed verification when I checked the source on OpenLibrary. So perhaps the whole article needs a deeper source review. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 01:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think across the board, for a number of articles about race, ethnicity, the census, etc it needs to be clarified that European immigrant groups with a history of social persecution - the Irish, Italians, Ashkenazim, Poles, European Sephardim, Russians, and so forth - may have "become white" in an everyday social sense, but these groups were always legally white when it came to things like the census, naturalization, slave ownership, the Homestead Acts, etc. The situation is a bit more nuanced with MENA people in relationship to legal whiteness. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Oklahoma claim is probably missing the context that indigenous people with a blood quantum over 1/2 in Oklahoma were legally incompetent for years under federal guardianship laws post-statehood, contributing to problems like the Osage Indian murders and accusations of land theft by guardians. It's probably more accurate to say that white settlers saw us in Oklahoma as assimilable more than white. The claim may be technically true, but it's is missing some pretty key context. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC) edited TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, in Oklahoma, that claim is probably extra tenuous when you briefly consider the Freedmen (ethnic group) and, while I'd have to check court records to be sure, I don't think freedmen were considered white; but they are considered native American. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I need to dig into what legal whiteness means in this context. And how this would impact census records. Are there any known examples of a person being listed on both the Dawes Rolls and the US census? I know that in Maryland, Chinese-Americans were once classified as "honorary whites" for the purposes of public school attendance, but I doubt those people would have been listed as white on the census. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 15:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Bohemian Baltimore Yes, but its complex. Like if you look at the census records for one my Cherokee ancestors on the Dawes Rolls, the same individual will say Indian in one census and then say white in another later census. I don't know why and they're dead, I can't ask them now. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 21:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Bohemian Baltimore I've reached out to a few law professors around Oklahoma to see if anyone knows of an article or book that actually covers the topic of the legal construction of race in Oklahoma in detail. I should note, my initial conversations have been along the lines of "that would be a great thing to write, but I haven't heard of an article like that." TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Could use some eyes. Discussion of possible forks and new articles at Talk:Dakota War of 1862. Some users were pinged, but not editors from this project. See also Draft:Bdóte. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around Draft:Bdóte it seems like a mash-up of too many disparate things. From geography to parks/cemetaries/burial mounds, to languages/dialects, to restaurants and podcasts. I understand that it is a confluence of cultures, and know it is still a draft, but I'm having trouble getting to here: What is the central key purpose or concept? Without having an understanding of that it is hard to make suggestions for improvements or relevant citations. Netherzone ( talk) 00:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The editor is using "Bdote" to cover a lot of unrelated terms as some kind of POV fork. They seemed to be doing something similar with their other draft on Two Spirit.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm displeased at their use of the photo of prayer flags. The aren't the prayers of the photographer, it feels like a huge boundary violation to me. They seem really new to the topic in general, they don't exactly know how to identify problematic individuals, I feel like they are getting ahead of themselves. The Bdote draft is a mess of messes. Indigenous girl ( talk) 01:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E. helped out by turning the same user's 2S draft into a redirect the existing article, as it was a duplicate/POV fork of Two-spirit. The Bdote draft... again seems like something that will never pass AfC and should probably not be there, for all the reasons everyone has cited. WP is not the place for someone's unsourced project. I also think the photo of someone else's prayers is inappropriate and should be removed. I think if the photographer had understood the protocols she would not have taken and posted the photo to flickr. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see an argument for the splitting of the executions into a separate article (if there is enough sourcing to support it). I haven't done a literature review or anything, but coverage/analysis of the massacre may justify a separate article being developed to explore the coverage specific to it that may be out of place in the larger article.

But to do the split well someone would need to expand the coverage of the executions, it looks like most of the sourcing is decades old research which isn't necessarily bad, but adding some new scholarship probably wouldn't hurt. There are over 200 google scholar results since 2019 that could be used to help expand a split. Also, generally agree with folks here that the Bdote draft is not good. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, we already have Bdote Fort Snelling which is a redirect to Fort Snelling, which has this section: Fort Snelling#Bdóte. @ Pingnova:, I see you edited this section, to put in a cite (as a bare url; please read WP:CITE and WP:CS1 and learn how to format citations). Why are you not fleshing out existing articles? This looks to me, as with Draft:Two-spirit, an attempt to rewrite existing content as an unneeded, and not in compliance with policy, POV-fork. I propose, like with the 2S draft we redirect it to Fort Snelling or Fort Snelling#Bdóte. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of anything here, but as a quick policy note: As much as I respect Alalch E., they're completely wrong on policy here, and I'd caution against taking their mistaken unilateral action as authorative. Unilateral redirection of drafts can be appropriate when the draft is identical to the article, or in lieu of speedy deletion. (That's not even in any policy, but seems common sense.) But there is no rule against using draftspace to rewrite an existing article, nor to work on a potential fork of an article. ( I've done it, as part of bringing an article from stub to GA; here's another I have on the back burner.) I'm not going to revert Alalch at the two-spirit draft, because I imagine if Pingnova objected they would have themself reverted, but this is not an appropriate way to convey objections to a draft's content. The correct approach is to either follow the normal editorial process ( WP:BRD, talkpage feedback) or to take the draft to MfD (but note WP:NDRAFT). -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both for the pings. So yes, I hear that. However at MfD, speedy redirection per WP:SRE could always be applied (the most obscure guideline maybe?). Redirecting can be a constructive way to signal to an editor that their draft is not promising and that they should test their ideas for improving the article on the talk page. But if the draft indicates the presence of sensible ideas for improvement it should not be redirected. That draft was not promising and I was unable to see any such ideas being expressed within. — Alalch E. 20:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Tamzin. I had asked Liz for advice on deletions because new user Pingnova, who created the drafts is refusing to respond on talk. When Pingnova posted here, they made a number of comments that made it clear they are unfamiliar with the topics they want to write on. This has also become clear in the drafts and other edits they have made. We have a situation where a new editor has some sweeping ideas for replacing existing content on Indigenous topics, but their initial efforts have, by the estimation of a number of us here at the wikiproject, been problematic. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @ Oncamera and @ CorbieVreccan that the Bdote draft as well as the Two-spirit draft are POV forks and are unnecessary. I also agree with the above editors regarding use of the prayer flag photo. @ Pingnova, I know you are enthusiastic about editing in the indigenous area, and not to quell your enthusiasm, but it's been suggested that you slow down and work things thru with other editors before making sweeping changes.That seems like good advice that is well intended! Netherzone ( talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by working things through with other editors, responding to talk page feedback? (Tone is hard on the internet.) As the draft and others in this comment have acknowledged, it's a draft that isn't done yet. I explained elsewhere that I was working though sources slowly because I'm focusing on meeting verifiability requirements from the get-go. I will add a list of sources to the Bdote page since even though it isn't finished I can understand why that would be an issue that jumps out. Sources aren't in templates because I edit on a mobile device, which makes that really difficult. I was going to do the largest content and then align the sources with templates, because that will take a considerable amount of time and effort for me.

Bdote is not the same as Fort Snelling. "Fort Snelling at Bdote" was a proposed name for the park around the fort that was abandoned due to budget threats, as outlined on the Bdote page. All that exists on wiki purely on Bdote today is Bdote Memory Map, which is one of the core sources for the Bdote draft. Fort Snelling is within Bdote, like other locations listed in the draft.

As for responding, I have a job and a life outside of Wikipedia so I can't even be on here daily. I'd really appreciate time to respond to comments that's inclusive of people who can't dedicate large amounts of time to being on Wikipedia. Particularly before large reversions or moves are made on something I've been dedicating a lot of time and effort to. In the past week h I've had way way more pings than I ever had in seven years, which is kind of ooverwhelming. I also only have a certain amount of data each month and can't edit once that's up unless I can get somewhere with wifi. Off-Wikipedia I've been spending time reading some of the books I'm using as sources to make sure I'm getting all of the information that's relevent out of them, usually when I run out of data.

Am I using drafts incorrectly? The help pages say they are for proposing and workshopping new or updated articles, and hosting writing which isn't up to wiki standards yet (typically what the word draft means anyway), which is what I've been treating them as. Especially considering I can't make edits all at once, but in pieces because of my limited free time and internet access, I figured a draft was the way to go.

TulsaPoliticsFan mentioned one of the reasons I've been making the draft and other edits: outdated sources that are decades old when there are hundreds of new ones since just 2019. This is true of two-spirit, the U.S.–Dakota War of 1862, Bdote, the Dakota 86+2, and many other pages I've looked at. Recent sources are encouraged on Wikipedia and by the IPNA guidelines that I read. I want to verify existing sources and update outdated information. Usually outdated info about Native people in MN comes from missionaries and other colonizing authorities, which tend to not be accurate to Native perspectives. A lot of Dakota language on wiki for example sources Stephen R. Riggs's orthography, which was functional at the time, but doesn't totally reflect historical Dakota understandings and definitely doesn't reflect modern usage. His intent in recording Dakota was to translate the Bible and other Christian texts for conversion, which is a major bias to consider when sourcing his work. Authors such as Colette Hyman, Gwen Westerman, and Bruce White, and programs such as Dakhóta Iápi Okhódakičhiye and the U of M are much more recent and accurate verifiable sources for Dakota language construction and orthography, and history and modern culture. Bdote uses info from Hyman, Westerman, and White, as well as some other sources such as the U of M Dakota language program site and the Fort Snelling official website. - Pingnova (for some reason I was unable to use the reply buttons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingnova ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Bdote could exist, but not the way that it's being written about as if it's "geographical location" on Pingnova's draft. The junction of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers--known to the Dakota as Bdote--is a place of major social, cultural, and historical significance to all people inhabiting the region, a place whose history evokes both pride and pain. It is a place of cultural importance to many Dakota people as a site of creation, as well as a historical gathering place and the site of the internment of Dakota people in the wake of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. [1] It's a sacred location that has many historical events tried to it, from the supernatural to Euro-Dakota interactions, and the draft fails to convey that (yeah, it's a draft). It's written from a Western viewpoint that tries to present a POV that promotes Dakota language, but it's a really empty article when you get past the Indigenous placenames and I think it would be deleted in present form it's taking. I think could write a draft with sourced information that would validate its existence as a separate article but it would have to start from scratch using sources and not just writing an essay and later trying to source it.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an essay tone. Not encyclopedic. WP:TNT. I'd trust you to start over with it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess, rather than deleting it, you could just TNT in the draft form, if you want. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I fully support you writing it @ Oncamera, whether you start from scratch or nuke the current draft. Currently it's just so bad and there needs to be more of a Dakota input aside from language bits. Indigenous girl ( talk) 21:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

AND all the language bits need to be checked, or cut, as well. They can't be assumed to be correct. Which is another reason I want OnCamera to do it. Pingnova has had a lot of their efforts at Dakota reverted, both on WP and on wiktionary. I asked a L/D/N teacher friend to take a look at their contribs and they were also concerned. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, none of my edits on Wiktionary have been reverted. If you have questions about the sources, they are listed on the entries. Pingnova ( talk) 21:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits had to be heavily re-edited in some cases, creating extra work for other editors who also have busy lives. That's why you're being advised to slow your roll until you have educated yourself with the books you say you are reading. Your rush to add information creates work for others having to re-write the things you add.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They were edited to fix formatting mistakes, not content. Please see the edit notes to verify. Pingnova ( talk) 22:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is untrue. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to this. Again please see the edit history on those articles. Additionally you can talk to User:Surjection who helped me fix up the formatting. Thanks. Pingnova ( talk) 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

[ec] About the viability of Bdóte as an article: It looks like there should be this article so that the coverage would not be fragmented. The main Bdóte content has been placed within Pike Island as the h2 "History", but the area of Bdóte does not correspond to the island. At the same time, a fragment about Bdóte is in the Fort Snelling article; incidentally, this is the only place with a "Bdóte" heading, however the paragraph starts with a Bdóte pipe which leads to the island (but then, that article says that the island =/= Bdóte). This is highly disorganized, and it would be better to concentrate that coverage at a separate page. Since a draft is in development, interested editors could go and do plain old editing of the draft. Alternatively, a stub can quickly be created, and/or existing coverage of the topic can be copied there, and summarized on the source pages.— Alalch E. 20:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is why I originally set out to create the Bdote page. There was no Bdote page and Pike Island and Fort Snelling are not all of Bdote. What do you think I should add to the draft? Pingnova ( talk) 21:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally would delete and start over using sources to write the article as is the norm on Wikipedia. Again, you are asking other editors to fix your editing skills and your rush to write drafts without using sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Pingnova: as Wikipedians, we work usually collaborate on existing articles. We create sections in existing articles and then, with consensus, consider if there's enough for splitting that material into its own article. If you want to do the type of unsourced practice you've been doing, your personal sandbox is more appropriate than drafts for a beginner editor such as yourself.

@ Oncamera: it might be easier technically, as in avoiding page deletion codes and such, to just manually, as a regular editor, blank the page and start over with the new content when you're ready. It will accomplish the same end with less technicalities. If you want a different title, you can move it once the draft is more substantial. Or, that's how I'd do it at this point. Same effect as TNT, but less hassle. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, backdoor deletions of drafts are inappropriate. MfD is an option; otherwise, one can always create a second draft suffixed with "(2)". -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 23:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Pingnova, you say you have limited time, limited data and a busy job and a busy life. Join the club, we are all in the same boat as volunteer editors! All the more reason to just slow down, take time to mull over other folks comments, criticism, and viewpoints. Trust your fellow editors, they are awesome and smart and extremely knowlegeable of the field thru their own communities and their scholarship. Netherzone ( talk) 23:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Toward reconciliation

So, for full context here, I've been talking to Pingnova a bit on Discord the past week or two about all of this. Since I edit about LGBTQ topics, we got to talking about the Two-spirit article, and since then I've stayed abreast of related developments. I haven't commented on-wiki because my awareness only came from these off-wiki discussions, but I happen to have this page watchlisted from a past discussion, and saw this matter come up on my watchlist today, so decided to comment.

My impression of Pingnova is someone who cares deeply about this topic area, and who wants to improve Wikipedia's coverage of it, particularly in decolonizing the sources and perspectives used. My impression of people who've criticized their edits is... the same. It really looks like everyone here wants the same thing.

So, again, I'm an outsider to this topic area, but I know some of you know me, and I know Pingnova knows me, and I'm hoping I can act as a kind of bridge here toward a reconciliation. It seems to me that the main issue here isn't that Pingnova is ignorant as to Indigenous topics, but rather that they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia norms on writing about these topics. And that what they could really use here is some sort of mentorship, either formal or informal.

oncamera, since you've indicated interest in writing the same article Pingnova wants to write, would you be open to working together with them on that, and in the process answering whatever questions that they may have, and clearing up any misconceptions that may arise, regarding writing about Indigenous topics on Wikipedia? That strikes me as a possibility that could benefit Wikipedia both with a new quality article and a new quality contributor. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing their draft nor being someone's mentor to Native topics who behaves as they do. Bdote would have to be completely re-written from the start using reliable sources (the foundation of Wikipedia) and so there's no point in trying to save materials from their version which has few sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, with all due respect for you and your efforts, Pingnova, a young person who posted above and said they are a white settler, called an article written by Indigenous people, some of whom are two spirit, a product of "vandalism". They wanted to revive a white-lens article on the topic. They wanted to write a new article to replace the Indigenous-written one. They kept showing a clear lack of familiarity with the topic, and that they had mostly read pop-culture misinformation. Pingnova flagged well-known Indigenous writers with "who"? tags, removed the fact that the term is modern from the lede, even though there is hidden text citing sources and saying not to remove the word. They added in a quote from a Pretendian as a giant pull-quote up top and argued with Indigenous people about it. When some of us tried to engage with them here and on talk, they were either incivil or refused to respond. They have whitesplained to Indigenous people, insisting they know these topics better. They have pinged non-Natives into discussions instead of Indigenous editors. Yes, they are eager to make an imprint on WP, but they have not seemed at all eager to collaborate with Indigenous people or the editors who have earned the trust of the Indigenous people in the wikiproject. This can of course change if someone is willing to learn, but we haven't seen anything to indicate that this person wants to learn anything. Please try and see what we're going through having to clean up this mess and tolerate their insults. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

we haven't seen anything to indicate that this person wants to learn anything To be clear, I did ask them, before posting this, if they would agree to some kind of mentorship / "on-the-job learning", and they did. What I've seen so far here is that they made some good-faith changes, and you came down fairly hard on them, and they've taken umbrage at that, and now we're in a cycle heading in a bad direction. You have valid concerns, but WP:BITE also applies. This could land at AN/I with a lot of recriminations. Or we could defuse tensions and try to get some quality content out of this. I'd really like to see both Pingnova and you step up to the plate on that. (Also, I do not think it is appropriate to raise the race of editors as an aspect of user conduct concerns.) -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 23:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, it sounds like this user has been very different with you than with us. I can understand your thinking so, but it's not about race. Indigenous identity is about citizenship, family and culture, not race. In editing Indigenous articles, cultural familiarity, cultural competence, and accountability can be relevant factors. We have valued and valuable editors of all backgrounds here. And as people can make any kind of claim about themselves on-wiki, we tend to evaluate people based on their contribs, not what they say about themselves. But for context, it was Pingnova who raised the issue, first in their intro and then more loosely when they said they thought the article was the product of " vandalism" rather than largely the work of editors from this wikiproject. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where they say the page was the product of vandalism. They said the page's history of vandalism may have skewed content, which I read as meaning, there may have been some sort of overcorrection against vandalism. And I agree on evaluating based on contribs, not identity; which is why I don't think it's appropriate to comment in a way that focuses on the identities of both Pingnova and other editors.

This is a new user trying to help. You are one of this topic area's most experienced editors, and an admin. Your attitude toward them has been fairly BITEy, and shown assumptions of bad faith. I'm asking you to step back and reconsider whether the approach you're taking is the one that benefits the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to update, I went ahead and redid the draft, removing unsourced information and refocusing the article to stay on topic. Editors can help polish it up inorder to make it ready and promote it from a draft.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that, and for your continuing work on the draft. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to me that Pingnova has gotten bitten here. Maybe they made some mistakes at Two Spirit, but some of the feedback they're getting is definitely confusing. They're being told to slow down, but they barely have any recent mainspace edits. They're actually going pretty slowly at this point. It's been said that they aren't willing to collaborate and are being incivil, but they introduced themselves here of their own accord and I haven't seen any incivility. Tamzin points out that Pingnova's words are being twisted and makes other valid points.

At least with Bdóte, it seems they've identified a legitimate gap in coverage and attempted to fill it. (I haven't actually reveiwed the article, but I read this discussion and conclude from it that the article will wind up in mainspace in some form.) How about some positive feedback for that? Thanks Pingnova for finding a gap in the encyclopedia's coverage of Indigenous topics and for doing something about it! I'm sorry you've been treated poorly. I hope you will continue to find gaps in coverage and try to fill them, even though this isn't always a very nice place to work. Larataguera ( talk) 11:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Larataguera and @ Tamzin, I can understand your concerns about how @ Pingnova appears to have been treated. Please understand that the mistakes that they have made have been, to those in community, significant. I appreciate that they are ready and willing to introduce new material to Wikipedia however they have not been taking Indigenous voices into account. While they did introduce themselves here, they did not ping Indigenous editors on articles they were having frustrations with and for me, that is problematic. I'm hoping that with time they will become a good ally and listen to Native editors :) I get that it's hard when you are young and really want to contribute and do all the things you feel are right :) Sometimes they are not quite right. It's rather frustrating to perceive that we are being talked down to and that our critiques are insignificant and outright poor behavior. I don't believe that Pingnova's edits were made in bad faith, I do believe they were made out of ignorance. And that ignorance has everything to do with not understanding the community they are writing about. All allies go through a learning curve. And that's okay! It may not be fun or pleasant all of the time. Native people should not be expected to spoonfeed people from outside community, that's not fair. Anyway, that's all I have to say right now. Thanks @ Oncamera for taking on the article <3 Indigenous girl ( talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Indigenous girl: You know I appreciate your contributions to this topic area. But some of this feels like that same confusing advice that Larataguera was talking about. Pingnova is new, but they also erred by not pinging Native editors, but no one should be expected to spoonfeed them? How would they have known which Native editors to ping? How would they have known, without becoming acquainted with this project's memebers, who would take that as a request for spoonfeeding? Of course you have no obligation to teach them anything— no editor is obliged to teach anyone anything—but given the choice between teaching a new editor the ropes and pushing them away, editors are expected to do the former (or do nothing at all), per WP:BITE. I think the excerpts of that guideline selected by ArbCom here are apt.

To be clear, I would like to see more participation here from @ Pingnova, affirming a willingness to learn, but I understand their frustration at this situation, and would urge you to look at this through the eyes of a new user who tried to fix an article they saw as lacking, and then getting a pretty rough response to it, with contradictory or incorrect demands (don't use draftspace for unfinished projects??) and various allegations being made without any diffs (their Wiktionary talkpage is a redlink, for instance, but reading the thread above one would think they're in huge trouble over there). Innocent mistakes (like using {{ who}} for someone referred to only by a surname) have been blown up into something worse, even after explanations. The worst possible readings of comments (like the "vandalism" matter above) have been taken. I'm trying to give a reality check here. This is not an appropriate way to treat a new user. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

On the talk page of draft Bdote, they made it seem as if I had to ask permission to edit the page. Explaining to them that they don't WP:OWN drafts isn't biting them. Another user said to use their sandbox if they're just compiling info and don't want it edited nor removed for not being sourced, which is what many users do instead of writing drafts and then asking other editors to "wait" for permission to edit.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

They asked if you would hold off on completely rewriting the draft, while they worked on it. That's a reasonable request, and consistent with what I said above, about how the ideal way to rewrite an in-use draft is to just create a second draft. I do not see any ownership here. But also, your response there is not what I was referring to as biting. I'm referring to the overall way they've been treated. If there is an ownership issue here, it is the general attitude, expressed by several implicitly or explicitly, that an outsider should not be editing IPNA articles without this project's permission, while simultaneously not helping to educate them. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a completely unreasonable request to ask others not to edit when it's in the draft space lacking sources. Sourcing information is one of the foundations of Wikipedia, not tone policing folks who bring up the policies.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin Issues such as quoting a pretendian and using pictures of things that are considered highly offensive in community is problematic. I would have no issue if they had come to the project and asked if the picture was acceptable. That would have been fantastic! Because of their inexperience they did not know the individual was a pretendian and attributed them to a federally recognized tribe. People in community and experienced allies are and have been well aware that the individual used is highly problematic. How did allies learn this? By watching and learning. I understand that wikipedia has policies but here in lays the problem, what happens when those policies clash with how we deal with situations in the real world? This is why there is such an issue with retaining new Indigenous editors. It's difficult to write about issues concerning Indian Country when there is repeated disregard for our collective opinion. I'm not saying that we are the only ones who should be editing such articles, what i am saying is that if we see something as a particularly problematic issue, then it is a particularly problematic issue. Being told that we are wrong about something thay affects us directly, do matter how small or insignificant you may see it as, is insulting. I know that you absolutely do not mean it that way and that is in no way your intention. I know you are not that kind of person. I do believe in being honest however so i am being honest, Im willing to 'say' it out loud not to be hurtful but so that you will hopefully understand. This is part of reconcilliation. Its saying and hearing the hard stuff. Peace <3 Indigenous girl ( talk) 18:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate, @ Indigenous girl, that you're being frank here and, while you're being somewhat critical of Pingnova, I don't think you're assuming bad faith or BITEing—just starting off on a bad foot. Well, still quixotically trying for a positive outcome here: I see that Pingnova has, above, said regarding the pull quote from Enos: I really appreciate that you pointed out that part didn't work. I certainly do not want to include any false or misleading information, or anything against the identity verification guidelines. Do you, Indigenous girl, accept that as an acknowledgment by Pingnova that they were wrong about Enos and will try better? I also note that their very first comment on this page asked that if there are particular things I should keep in mind[,] please let me know, which I'm hoping shows an eagerness to indeed watch[] and learn[] from the people who are more experienced in this topic area; however, that comment was never replied to.

Mind you, this isn't me saying that everyone's responses here have been entirely unreasonable. I understand that this topic area is beset with new users who, through incompetence or malice or both, push misconceptions about Indigenous matters, sometimes aggressively (recalling the context in which you and I first became acquainted), and I understand that that can lead to a sort of jaundice among the regulars. And I don't dispute that there have been legitimate reasons to push back against some things Pingnova has said and done. So on the other side here, @ Pingnova, do you acknowledge that you didn't understand the sensitivity of using the prayer flag images? Can you commit to more proactively asking questions about matters that might be sensitive, if you're unsure of what the best editing practie is? -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Tamzin I'm absolutely not assuming bad faith. I think that Pingnova absolutely wants to contribute in a positive way. The manner in which they responded on the Two Spirit article to Corbie when they initially brought it up, [ [2]] was a bit off putting. I understand that Pingnova is new to editing NDN articles but we are not dogs, we are not registered, we are enrolled or we have status. It is very unsettling to have somebody think that they know better or more than the folks who have been editing the 2S article, which includes members of the community. It's a bit of a slap in the face, okay more than a slap in the face. I had made mention on the talk page of the Bdote draft to please remove the prayer flags from the draft as well as the Dakota War of 1862 article. They did not respond and they did not remove the sensitive material. I did. And yeah, there are editors, not necessarily new, who, through incompetence or malice or both, push misconceptions about indigenous matters. And it's super frustrating. Because it happens every single day, on line and off. So do I get snippy? Yes, I sure do, when individuals portray themselves to know more or better. If @ Pingnova wants to ask questions on my talk page or email me, I'm totally down with that, however between school and work I'm not always available. Indigenous girl ( talk) 22:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

People are expected to have substantial knowledge when editing nuclear chemistry articles. The exact same with Indigenous articles. Experience and knowledge matter. Yuchitown ( talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thanks, @ Indigenous girl. An offer like this is all I was looking for for Pingnova. I hope they take you up on it. I know it can be demoralizing to be an enthusiastic new user and have more experienced editors criticize one's work, but I hope they can see that you are willing to help them become better-versed in this topic area (subject to your availability and, of course, their willingness to listen). Pingnova has always struck me, in our 1-on-1 interactions, as someone who very much wants to hear and defer to Native perspectives, and it's a shame that the opposite impression has been given; I hope Pingnova takes the opportunity to set the record straight by seeking your counsel. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Tamzin :) I just discovered more edits that @ Pingnova had made which were inaccurate. Thankfully Corbie caught the most egregious. [3] In this edit Pingnova incorrectly explains a monument. They claim the monument is a 'peace pipe' from Dakota Elder Amos Owen. That is absolutely not the case. The monument is made of pipestone and lists all of the bands that were interned at the site. Using the words 'peace pipe', that's super insulting. The sineage that they took the information from specifically states, 'The pipestone in the center of the memorial was placed here by Amos Owen of the Prarie Island Indian Community during a ceremony in 1987. Please be respectful of this sacred place.', it says nothing about 'peace pipes'. In the Fawn Leap Falls article the erroneously state, 'The primary source for Fawn's Leap in the 1880s was sewage and drainage erected for the growing population and industry. The latest recorded incidence of the falls running was 1922.' https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fawn%27s_Leap_Falls&diff=next&oldid=1171466140 This is not in line with what the actual material indicates,'No surprise that folks were eager to pave over the wetland, even if it would cost them a waterfall or two. When city engineers began filling in wetlands and laying sewer systems for storm and waste water in the 1880’s the waterfalls began to disappear. The destruction of Silver Cascade was noted in the Pioneer Press on April 24, 1883. City maps were still indicating the locations of Fawn’s Leap and the Silver Cascade as late as 1885 and there are even reports of the falls running as late as 1922, most of their water came from pipes and ditches.' [4] https://www.nokohaha.com/2016/01/30/three-more-falling-waters/ Sewage was NOT the source in the 1880s, the source does not say this. Did the laying of pipes lead to the disappearance/destruction of the falls? Yep, that sure did happen. But that is not what was giving life to the falls at that time. By the 1920s when the falls were dying they were being fed by pipes and ditches which I wrote as conveyed run off, because that is what pipes and ditches are. We don't know if those were sewage pipes or drainage pipes feeding the dying falls in the early 1920s, the source is not clear on that.

So why and I telling you this? Because Pingnova is not using due diligence. I'll be the first to admit that I am full of typos and the like lately. If I catch a typo in an article I'll fix it. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting content. Yet Pingnova was inferring that other editors were misrepresenting content, specifically in the 2S article, I am not sure if they were elsewhere. You might be saying, "omg, Iggy is a big baby, whining about using the word peace pipe." Well, the pipe is a sacred object to many Nations. Minimal exposure to community would have shown proper terminology. This is like super frustrating NDN 101 stuff. It's just plain insulting. Wikipedia is not a spaghetti western, we don't need to use tonto speak. This is why folks have talked about listen and learn and slow your roll. Non-Native people might just blow this isht off but it's really insulting. The misuse of sources, well, whatever. It happens on the 'pedia all the time but for them to accuse others of doing it while they themselves were is hypocritical.

I'm still happy to answer questions that they might have but they need to understand that if I'm talking about Native culture they will have to listen and pay attention and understand that they have hurt people without realizing it. I'm specifically talking about oncamera's treatment around the Bdóte draft. Essentially telling oncamera to sit down and shut up (there are many of us that took it that way, I'm just not afraid to be honest) on an article draft that is about her culture/community is so incredibly offensive, I can't even put it into words. Well, I can but I am not sure if I would get into trouble or not if I made a comment about colonization. I am very frustrated. Other editors are very frustrated. I am also feeling a little cautious and I am hoping that you are not being used, because then I will be upset. I hope I am making sense because I am very, very tired. Peace <3 Indigenous girl ( talk) 22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being used, Iggy. And I hope you don't think I'm against you here. I'm just trying to offer some guidance to a new user—which, since their desired editing area only overlaps slightly with the ones I edit in normally, has meant trying to connect them with someone with more relevant expertise. And I've accomplished that, with your gracious help. The rest, from here, is up to them. They can heed your critique, or not. I just wanted to make sure they were getting a fair chance to sink or swim. I hope that makes sense. All the best. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 01:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for the mistake with the pipestone and misrepresenting the ambiguity of the falls source. For the pipestone, Amos Owen was a pipe carrier for the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Community, so I frequently read about peace ceremonies he conducted with pipes, particularly in the context of the 1862 war. I misread "pipestone" as talking about a pipe peace monument. I assumed the falls articles were excluding the exact nature of the runoff in that sentence for brevity, since the article had already mentioned the sewage and stormwater systems, but I shouldn't make that assumption when the WP guidelines say to represent just what is in the source text. So you're right it should have just said it is runoff to communicate the unknown nature. I'm sorry this whole interaction has gone so wrong and hope I'm able to communicate those were honest phrasing mistakes. I will be sure to look closer in the future. I likewise didn't mean for my message to OC to be read that way, I wanted to plan with them to reduce edit conflict technical issues in the future, but I was frustrated because I had just encountered that issue and that tone come through. I am not the best at tone on the internet, which I don't mean as an excuse, I just hope some background helps understanding and that I remind myself others have the same issue. Pingnova ( talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Pingnova, I would encourage you to listen and read more than you edit in this area for a while. Gain an understanding. When I fail to read a discussion thoroughly I make mistakes in judgement. Most humans do. This is a very tight community. We definitely bump heads occasionally but we have a mutual respect for each other's experiences. Above all else I know that editors like Indigenous Girl, and Yuchitown, and Corbie, among so many others, have the best interest of this community at heart. If you truly are here in good faith and I have to believe that you are then please heed my words. We may argue with each other over things that are written here but make no mistake about it, there are those of us that have experienced a life of being marginalized and denigrated. This has went on for centuries and the wounds are very deep. I need you to realize that misusing something as sacred as the pipe is not just a mistake, it's insulting to whole nations to which those items are sacred.

I learned a valuable lesson recently. In a discussion I was trying so hard to find middle ground to move the discussion forward and make some change because an article was misrepresenting. I'm a doer. I find ways to make small changes if I have to in order to get to the next step with the ultimate goal in mind. They told me I couldn't grow vegetables and herbs where I live because of the harsh climate. I found a way to make it happen. In my life I don't wait for someone else to do things for me. I see, I do. But in doing that on the article I lost focus. While I believe, opposition to my suggestion could have been handled differently, I was wrong. The honest misuse of one word can cause insult, even if unintended. It can lead to misunderstandings which lead to hurt and bitterness. Please take care when you are editing about Indigenous topics to keep what we are saying in mind. -- ARose Wolf 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Most tribes prohibit dual citizenship, but some allow it. I think it would be useful to maintain a list of some sort on Wikipedia of tribes that allow dual enrollment and what that entails. I'm not sure if this could be its own article or perhaps a section of an existing article. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe there are enough published articles about that subject to support anything about it. Basically, a handful of tribes allow dual citizenship, while most don't. Everything here is supposed to be based on published, secondary sources. Yuchitown ( talk) 03:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Maybe a Wikiproject page might be worth having. It might make copy editing some articles easier. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I promise there isn't much to say about it, and I'd be impressed if there are quality published articles on the subject. Besides Osage Nation, Cherokee Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and Quapaw Nation, who allows multiple enrollment? Oscar Hokeah is enrolled in both the Cherokee Nation and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, which the Kiowas don't allow, so I'm amazed they haven't come down on him yet. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I don't know who allows multiple enrollment, which is why I think a list may be useful. Keep in mind I edit about Oklahoma politicians and tribal politicians in Oklahoma so I probably see a disproportionate number of dual tribal citizens. Just off the top of my head I wrote Joseph Tali Byrd (who funny enough I think is Cherokee, Quapaw, and Osage) this year. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 16:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone has the time and energy ya'll might want to check out a bunch of recent changes that editors with a... certain history of editing pages related to this project have been trying to institute at Native American Use of Fire in Ecosystems. On a related note, if you're feeling really energetic, similar changes have been made at Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and other related pages. GeraldineSeinfeld ( talk) 13:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a follow up, GeraldineSeinfeld "retired" under suspicions of sockpuppetry. Folks, let's all help to make sure we keep it clean here, so as not to undermine the credibility of this community Crescent77 ( talk) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that this Wikiproject isn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It's not the purpose of this talk page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, well aware. Just suggesting that we all work to make sure it doesn't turn into that. Crescent77 ( talk) 04:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone nominated this category for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_20#Category:Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent. Yuchitown ( talk) 23:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Hello -- I'm working on contributing to the article Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk (an Inuk author), and I'm interested in adding Inuktitut syllabics for her name to the lead, but I don't have the language skills to do that myself. Can anyone offer advice or suggest a resource for this? Thank you, Alanna the Brave ( talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey there folks, just wanted to call attention to the Treaty of Old Crossing page, which could do with a bit of a re-write. Seems much more in line with an original research paper then a wikipedia page. Although I think the subject itself is unquestionably notable I don't feel like it's getting the article it deserves and the one it has features quite a bit of OR and synthesis. Not that I disagree with the viewpoint really, but section headers such as "A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest" aren't really how articles are organized. This seemed like an appropriate place to get some knowledgeable eyes, apologies if I was mistaken on that. - 50.234.188.27 ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Native American clothing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 19 § Native American clothing until a consensus is reached. As a result of seeing that discussion, I have noticed we do not have (or at least I have not been able to find) an overview article about the traditional clothing of Native American peoples generally, which I feel is a gap in our coverage. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A likely WP:COI editor repeatedly makes unsourced changes to the Joseph Bruchac article. Warnings are accomplishing nothing. More eyes appreciated! Yuchitown ( talk) 17:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Watchlisted -- ARose Wolf 17:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@ ARoseWolf@ Yuchitown see

Special:Contributions/CourseCorrection Are those deletions justified? Doug Weller talk 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No response. See WP:BLPN#Joseph Bruchac Doug Weller talk 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in Jeff Fynn-Paul, a new article about a scholar whose work in the field of indigenous peoples' history appears to be controversial: [5]. I came across this at NPP, and this is not the area I work in, so more eyes would be appreciated. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've moved it to draftspace at Draft:Jeff Fynn-Paul, but as the topic is likely notable my request for more eyes on this stands. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely controversial, and as is expected with a new work, there's not yet much for independent coverage. Do you have a specific concern you're looking to address? Crescent77 ( talk) 04:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A reader would not come away with the impression that the work is in any way controversial. Vanamonde ( Talk) 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have occasionally wondered about how to treat hyphens in Native American names. My impression is that placing hyphens between syllables in Native American names was a convention used by some 19th and early 20th century white writers to alert readers that the names were Native American. When I see such names in Wikipedia, as in the caption for the top image in Kaw people, I wonder if it is necessary to continue to include the hyphens. As I recall, in at least some cases, Native American names have hyphens in some source, but not in others. I'm fuzzy on details, but I think in some cases I have removed the hyphens from Native American names I have used in articles. Donald Albury 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't use the hyphens, try not to, and believe it's outdated. Even translated versions of names seems outdated. It's not like Wikipedia translates Japanese names etc into English.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oncamera has it right. Hyphens are used today in educational lessons to teach the language to students. I know some sources include hyphens, perhaps in a misunderstanding, but I think we should try to avoid that. -- ARose Wolf 13:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt they were outdated and somewhat disrespectful, but I wanted a second opinion. Donald Albury 20:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Genocide of Indigenous peoples be renamed and moved to Genocide of indigenous peoples. Discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples. Would be great to have input from authors who contribute to Indigenous topics. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Hi, I'm doing a copy edit on Minnekhada Regional Park and I'd like an experienced editor from this WikiProject to especially scrutinize the section Indigenous involvement and offer some feedback or make changes as needed. Thanks! Annwfwn ( talk) 19:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalisation of "native" in King Philip's War about the capitalization of Native in the article. -- ARose Wolf 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I proposed splitting Native American fashion into two articles, one with Native American content (based in the United States) and the other Indigenous fashion of the Americas for content about Indigenous peoples of the Americas beyond the US. Thoughts on the matter welcome at Talk:Native American fashion#Splitting proposal. Yuchitown ( talk) 04:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Could use a rewrite or cleaning up, or at the very least, there's much usage of the word "squaw" that should probably be removed for something else? PersusjCP ( talk) 21:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Those were completely unnecessary. Yuchitown ( talk) 04:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Hello! I recently joined this WikiProject and have been working on one of the to-do list items, expanding the page for Big Warrior. I have already made some significant additions based on a few excellent sources I've found and have been reading through, but I know there's still plenty of research to do. If anyone is interested in working on this to-do item, the sources I've added to the citations have been a good starting point. Additionally, I'm a new editor still and so would appreciate if anyone has any interest in just reviewing the changes I've made so far.

I wanted to get some insight on a few questions as I go forward. Before I began editing it, the sole source cited in the article was a dictionary entry for a translation - useful info for that one reference, but absolutely no source for any of the biographical assertions. A few things have matched what I've found in the sources I've read so far, but without knowing the exact sources the original article writer used, I don't know where to fact-check them. For instance, one thing I had to outright change was the death date, as it was incorrectly listed as 1826 instead of the documented date in 1825. With that unverified information, I'm not sure what to do other than leave the citation needed note while I try to see what I can verify.

Another question is about sources I've found. One journal article cited a primary source about the Treaty of Fort Jackson from the National Archives with numerous quotes and information from minutes - I don't know how to access the Fort Jackson minutes myself to read more of the source than was quoted, but would that be considered OR, or use of primary sources? I know Wikipedia isn't the place for original research and primary sources should be used sparingly - but if I can find the primary source, it would be useful to see what other information about Big Warrior is recorded. For the direct quotes from the minutes that I pulled from the secondary source - should I reference the journal's cited source, the primary source? Both? Or just the secondary source?

Another source question - I saw on the guidelines about reliable sources, masters theses should be used judiciously as they might not be necessarily RS. I found a masters thesis that seems fairly academically rigorous to my novice-Wikipedian eye, but that would also be something I'd appreciate another perspective on to help assess.

And lastly, if there's any other feedback, please let me know! I don't know what I don't know yet about the intricacies of editing and WikiProjects. Elfangor9 ( talk) 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant provision in Wikipedia:Reliable sources is, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I would avoid using a master's thesis or dissertation unless you can demonstrate that it has been cited a significant number of times in other scholarly works (see the Citation counts section in the reliable sources guideline, which says, One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.) I know that dissertations often provide significantly more coverage on certain subjects than can be found in journals and books, and it can be tempting to use them when other reliable sources are scarce, but theses and dissertations, especially below the doctoral level, are generally not subject to the fact-checking and peer review that we look for in scholarly works. Personally, while I have used doctoral dissertations as sources, I never have used a master's or undergraduate thesis or dissertation as a source. Added note: What you can do is look at the sources cited in the thesis and dissertation, and, if they are reliable and available, use them as sources (i.e., look at such sources and put into your own words what those reliable sources say. Do not just lift a citation from the thesis or dissertation to support something you took from the thesis or dissertation. Donald Albury 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Edited 15:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of this person? Theoretically a medicine woman from Michigan who lived from 1919 to 1999. There isn't much about her that she didn't write. Yuchitown ( talk) 23:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

The lead says "Black Indians are Native American people – defined as Native American due to being affiliated with Native American communities and being culturally Native American – who also have significant African American heritage."

The source says: "Katz, William Loren (3 January 2012). Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. Simon and Schuster. p. 5. ISBN 9781442446373. Retrieved 31 May 2019. I have defined Black Indians as people who have a dual ancestry or black people who have lived for some time with Native Americans (e.g., lived on reservations)".

The lead was changed from:"Black Indians are those people of mixed African American and Native American heritage who have strong ties to and identify as Native Americans."

So, do we need a new source to match the current lead, or the old lead? Doug Weller talk 09:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If the person who changed the lead didn't provide a source or a rationale for the change, I think it's reasonable to change it back to the version that matches the source material. Pliny the Elderberry ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to define. The attorney in me wants to say Black Indians are Native American people – defined as Native American due to holding tribal citizenship – who also have significant African American heritage. But, that definition is tailored to contemporary people and probably doesn't work historically. The Old definition I think fits both historical and contemporary Black indians.

I do not like the new version

who have strong ties to - not necessarily; What are strong ties? If they mean citizenship sure, but if they mean cultural participation that isn't a requirement of being a Black Indian. I think this is too vague and doesn't tell us anything about how they're connected to tribes.

and identify as Native Americans. - again probably, but this seems to center the self-identification which is much less important than things like citizenship or claims to citizenship in my opinion.

We usually use a "citizenship focus" for indigenous identity. It's probably worth keeping in mind though that here we have groups like the Freedmen of the 5 tribes that have claims to citizenship, but currently lack it. Freedmen are Black Indians, but lack citizenship (excluding Cherokee freedmen) which complicates the citizenship centric model.

All this to say: I think this is a hard concept to define that breaks some of the normal rules we use when writing about Indians and the old lede was better. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been work on Osage biographies and stumble on Revard while research and writing about John Joseph Mathews. According to Osage historian Michael Snyder, Revard's the first Osage Rhodes Scholar and that he's of Osage descent, but his article lede clearly uses "self-identified" and has that category based on a cite that he was not enrolled from a 2023 book. It's a passing mention in a list of other authors on one page and I'm not sure its correct.

First, Snyder says he's Osage and Snyder is an Osage historian.

Second, the Osage Nation seems to call him Osage.

Finally, and this bit is some WP:OR so I apologize in advance, the Osage Nation required the ownership of Osage headrights for citizenship up until the 2000s in addition to descent. After that a constitutional change the Nation opened up membership to linear descent. Therefore it's possible that Revard could have not been enrolled for most of his career and then enrolled after the reforms toward the end of his life. However, I can't find any evidence for this, so I just have my best guess here.

Do other editors think we need any changes here or is the self-identified label the best one considering the sources? TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 18:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on some sources I added to the article and after finding Revard's father on the Osage Rolls, I've moved him from Category:American people who self-identify as being of Osage descent to Category:American people of Osage descent.

If I'm missing some scholarship that justifies moving him back to the self-id category please let me know. I know there is a lot of scholarship on fake claims to indigeneity and I could just have missed the article that explains his claims. I'm posting here so if I'm wrong y'all can let me know. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yavapai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'm new so I'm not sure what the process is like for suggesting that articles fall under this project's purview, if this is the wrong place please let me know.

Given this project's aim to "encompass all historic, ethnic, and cultural aspects of the many groups collectively described as Indigenous peoples of North America," and the historic and cultural significance of the site known as Machimoodus to the local Wangunk people, I think it may be reasonable to consider some or all of these articles part of the project:

Moodus, Connecticut Machimoodus State Park East Haddam, Connecticut

The site has been continuously inhabited for the last 10,000 years, has significant overlap with local post-contact history with the Wangunk, is specifically remarked on in numerous contemporary accounts and scholarly texts on Eastern Woodland spirituality and people, and is a focus of numerous local folk tales ( Moodus noises) which may derive from, or in some cases demonize, Eastern Woodland spirituality.

If it would not be appropriate to put these articles under the project's purview in the interest of updating, expanding, and correcting the information pertaining to Indigenous peoples in them, would it be appropriate to create a new article, "Machimoodus" or similar, that details the immediate area's Indigenous history? Thanks! Babeswayscaptcha ( talk) 19:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sources that support its significance to local Indigenous peoples' culture and history:

- Bragdon, Kathleen J. Native people of Southern New England, 1500-1650. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1999.

- Bragdon, Kathleen J. Native people of Southern New England, 1650-1775. University of Oklahoma Press, 2020.

- De Forest, John William. History of the Indians of Connecticut from the earliest known period to 1850. Conncecituct Historical Society, 1850.

- Field, David D. A history of the towns of Haddam and East Haddam. New York, New York: Loomis and Richards, 1814.

- Freedman, Samuel. “IN MOODUS, 3 CENTURIES OF SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL.” The New York Times, July 12, 1982, sec. B. [6] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/12/nyregion/in-moodus-3-centuries-of-shake-rattle-and-roll.html - Hancock, Elaina. “Caribou and Coffee.” UConn Magazine, December 1, 2022. https://magazine.uconn.edu/2022/10/18/caribou-and-coffee/.

- Lavin, Lucianne. “Pre-Colonial History of the Wangunk - The Institute for American Indian ...” Institute for American Indian Studies, December 5, 2015. [7] https://www.iaismuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pre-colonial_History_of_the_Wangunk-1.pdf. Simmons, William Scranton. Spirit of the New England tribes: History and folklore, 1620-1984. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1986.

- Testa, Candyce. Reclaiming Indigenous Landscapes, May 24, 2018. [8] https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/11603/11004. Trumbull, J. Hammond. Indian names of places, etc., in and on the borders of Connecticut: With interpretations of some of them. Hartford, Connecticut: Lockwood and Brainard, 1881.

Babeswayscaptcha ( talk) 19:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As I just posted on Talk:Cusabo that typically acknowledging organizations that self-identify as descendants of historic tribes serves as a compromise, but the Cusabo#21st century just attracts POV deletions, so am wondering if the entire section should be removed? Yuchitown ( talk) 15:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Does all the info in the section carry due weight? It seems only one organization has state recognition and the other has neither state nor federal. Like you have said, typically including those that self-identify is seen as a compromise but I do feel that whole section is not necessarily needed, especially the portion without a cited source. -- ARose Wolf 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Look at their own website, the state-recognized tribe doesn't even mention Cusabo among the tribes they claim descent from. I'll move it to the talk page. Yuchitown ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Talk:Everett, Washington

Talk:Seattle

Talk:Stanwood, Washington

The discussions are about whether Indigenous history is relevant to the history of the cities. A user is claiming Indigenous people are irrelevant because all they did is migrate around with only few traces of their existence. PersusjCP ( talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ PersusjCP: The issue is about a translated word being added to the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADLANG. Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Great way of minimizing what you said PersusjCP ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I just came to this WikiProject to see about other folks' issues, and ironically saw this.

The same user has been attempting to remove the Navajo name for Aztec, NM; s/he keeps changing up different excuses and reverting every attempt to put it back in, even when I've included numerous sources. It's particularly offensive (and I'm not Navajo) since the communities around the reservation generally embrace the use of Navajo naming conventions, and their names are often used in conjunction with the English naming of the locations.

Also, if you want to add to the above list, a little research dealing with this led me to discover the person removed a huge swath of indigenous history for Grand Rapids, MI.

This seems to be less of a simple editing trend by this user and distinctively more... intentional. 4CornersGuy ( talk) 09:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ 4CornersGuy In the discussion at Seattle they made several remarks which clearly state their bias as well. They seem to think that a few Indigenous people wandered around the continent and have no real connection to anything. If it seems to be a more widespread issue than this one occurrence maybe something needs to be done. PersusjCP ( talk) 18:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Navajo Nation, by way of example, is a sovereign nation within the United States, approximately the size of West Virginia, with over 400,000 registered tribal members. Translation: this user does not appear to be operating with any 'facts' whatsoever. Does Wikipedia have a means to deal with this kind of <ahem> systematic 'cleansing' (as opposed to fighting removal issues one page at a time)? More pointedly, do the operators of Wikipedia care?

I found this from earlier this year, too (I've assumed someone on this WikiProject is the author): https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html 4CornersGuy ( talk) 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Primarily the way to deal with these things is through the article talk page. Whether your perception is that systematic cleansing is taking place or not we can not assume bad faith on the part of other editors. That does not mean they are right and that their removal of content is right. I'm having that discussion with them on Talk:Grand Rapids, Michigan right now. I believe they believe they are removing information not relevant to the specific articles and thus improving the article and while a birth year for a Native American chief may not be relevant to the article there was content that was removed that is relevant to Grand Rapids and its Native American history. Any improvement they might make is causing additional work for others to repair links to sources and provide additional context to repair the brokenness of the article. I think they should take equally as great care with deletions as should be done with additions to the encyclopedia. -- ARose Wolf 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Given their widespread commitment to erasing specifically Indigenous history over long periods of time and over many Wikipedia articles, as well as their (at the very least) insensitive comments on Talk:Seattle, its hard for me to assume they are operating in good faith. PersusjCP ( talk) 19:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If their contributions were solely or mostly removal of Native American history I would be inclined to agree. But it doesn't reflect that. Some of their removals appear to be as the result of a fallacy in perspective and that leads to disruptive editing, damage to the encyclopedia and removal of valid content, in my opinion, but it alone does not denote bad faith editing. Even their comments, as insensitive as they are, do not automatically denote bad faith editing. I agree with addressing those areas we have issue with in a civil manner through discussion. Edit warring is not the answer. Writing long comments filled with accusations of deliberate bias will do nothing except maybe get users blocked for casting aspersions. No, we need to address the edits and give good and sound reasons. -- ARose Wolf 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Bad faith implies deceit, dishonesty, or fraud, and I would agree that there is nothing to suggest any of these; it would actually be much easier to deal with if there was. But one can simultaneously have a fallacy of perspective AND then have intentional harmful objectives driven by the fallacy. It's even logical that A can readily lead to B. Perhaps you meant 'bad actor'?

I admit my use of 'cleansing' was a bit tongue-in-cheek considering the nature of the content we're discussing, but the pragmatic concern is the same... when there is no principled logic applied and a lackadaisical attitude that nothing was meaningful or relevant pre-European settlement, it's difficult to have an intelligent dialog. A quick pop into the Grand Rapids discussion suggests you are also getting the same straw man arguments combined with a slammed door.

Now multiply this kind of activity by potentially hundreds (thousands?) of pages, and it becomes an impossible effort. Some people seem to have countless hours at their disposal. There is little recourse for simple (and time-constrained) contributors just trying to keep a page meaningful and have lives outside of the encyclopedia. 4CornersGuy ( talk) 02:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your assessment and in that Wikipedia has failed as a repository of human history. It is restrained by its own policies. My main concern with Magnolia, from policy standpoint, is not the removal of information. That's a judgement call and they made it. now anyone wanting to include content has to prove it belongs. It's that their kind of lazy mass deletions without taking the time to fix links and such causes damage to articles. From a community standpoint their tone in discussion and usage of certain words they know will trigger others can lead one to assume bad faith on their part and I do think there is truth to that in the discussion that has little to do with content. Also their insistence on continuing to do things they have been asked to stop and that common wiki-etiquette says they should do leads me to believe they are intentionally doing it. --- ARose Wolf 12:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I tried working on Duwamish people and created Duwamish Tribe to separate the broader ethnic group from the specific unrecognized tribe. The references in Duwamish people are especially challenging. But I found that many of the Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) are in pretty rough shape, if anyone wants a project. Oddly, the reservation articles are separate while articles encompassing an entire tribe are often missing.

User:PersusjCP is very knowledgeable about the local Indigenous languages and culture. I don't know if they are part of this WikiProject yet; if not, I enourage you to join! Yuchitown ( talk) 21:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yeah, many of the articles about the Indigenous peoples in WA state are pretty bad. I have done work in this field irl and have been slowly combing through articles bringing them up to speed, but its a lot of work and I am busy a lot of the time. There are many missing articles, and often, articles don't differentiate between the people, tribes associated with them, and reservations. I very much appreciate the help, and I encourage others interested in the subject matter to help as well!

On this WikiProject, I've lurked for a long time and contributed here and there, but I haven't officially added myself to the list, I don't think. I'm away from my computer but I will definitely add myself when I get back :) PersusjCP ( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No hurry, of course, since everyone is here as a volunteer. But since you are more familiar with the region and its articles, perhaps you might have suggestions for top priorities or a way forward? Yuchitown ( talk) 01:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Also sorry to have missed your conversations above on this same page. I wonder if any of the local language programs with websites would be willing to add common Lushootseed placenames in the region? Yuchitown ( talk) 17:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

That's actually my focus! :) I don't know if I have to declare a conflict of interest but I worked with the local language dept and cultural center to create a map of placenames in 6 languages for the museum. It's not published, so I can't use it as a source, sadly. Maybe one day. But I have been using the sources in my research for adding placenames to English Wikipedia. The main problem is when I try to add them to cities, people delete them because they're not "official" or they say they actually refer to the old village and not a place, which I disagree with, but there isn't any published material saying so, so I've been SOL when it comes to a lot of cities. But nevertheless, that's been much of my primary focus in the past year or so. I've asked before if some people in the department want to edit as well, but so far with no luck.

In regards to what I think could use the most work, I think determining what the pages with the biggest traffic are, and then fixing those first. I imagine Duwamish people is, as well as Seattle, and probably any other Seattle/Duwamish related articles. My suggestion would be to get those done first (unless there are others with higher traffic for some reason). PersusjCP ( talk) 20:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I had a burst of free time that is ending but will look into the related pages. Yuchitown ( talk) 03:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Many of these articles were written in the early days of Wikipedia and reflect the standards of a time long past. There's some good coverage on the German Wikipedia for various tribes and groups, so that can be used to help find resources. I would caution against activist editing, especially in cases where uncommon names and translations for modern places are added to long-stable articles; the pushback is not without merit, as Wikipedia entries must be neutral and reflect the available secondary sources, like it or not. Sounder Bruce 07:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@ SounderBruce, do you have evidence that anyone is activist editing? -- ARose Wolf 12:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Monarchies in the Americas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I created this template to connect the many related articles about the Lushootseed-speaking people and their culture and language, and serve as a navigational aide for people interested in the topic as a whole. Often times there are small or poorly-linked articles about the subject (such as Dohkwibuhch, a stub about the main "deity" of the traditional religion) which need attention and connection to the rest of the subject. Please feel free to add any relevant articles to the template that I might have missed, or change anything that should be done better. PersusjCP ( talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a wonderful compilation of information! Would it be possible to make this into a navigation box rather than a sidebar (i.e. a horizontal template at the base of the page as opposed to a vertical/right template at the beginning of the page? Then it would be more in keeping with Category:Native American navigational boxes and Category:First Nations navigational boxes and the sidebar wouldn't get tangled up with template:infoboxes. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

Of course! I was mainly inspired by the sidebar at Squamish people. Personally, I like sidebars better since they're at the top of the article which seems intuitive to me (I don't know how often casual readers even reach the bottom of an article), but it can definitely be made into a navbox to fit the pattern of navboxes relating to Indigenous peoples. If that happens, can we keep the colors? I personally like the more unique look it has, instead of the default blue-ish color. I'm not exactly sure how to change it into a navbox without breaking it though. PersusjCP ( talk) 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hiya, I'll respond over on the template talk page. Cheers, Yuchitown ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

I've submitted the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TelGonzie, but SPIs are backlogged. If anyone is willing to help with the editing warring at List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes and many of the Lipan Apache–related articles, that would be greatly appreciated (and yes, unfortunately articles like these are lighting rods for WP:SPAs. Yuchitown ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown

I watchlisted quite a few of the articles. I will do what I can to watch them. -- ARose Wolf 17:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find how to rename a category, but can someone move this to a capitalized version of Indigenous per WP:INDIGENOUS?

• Category:Religious places of the indigenous peoples of North America

Thanks,  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominated Requested speedy renaming for you at CfD. Thanks, Oncamera. -- ARose Wolf 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) edited --16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Willapa people#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

[9] and the discussion at User talk:Cullen328#Why did you block me from editing a page about my own organization Doug Weller talk 08:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)