Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

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

Progress report on assessment[edit]

Greek article about someone who recently died[edit]

I stumbled across el:Έντουαρντ_Άντριου_Χάρτζο which is about an indigenous person of the Americas who apparently died last month, but I havent been able to determine who it is. The name translates as 'Edward Andrew Hartz'. A helpful snippet of translated text is "He was a member of the 4th Signal Battalion 4th Infantry Division of the U.S. and for the services rendered to their country decorated by the Congress in November 2013 together with a further 32 representatives of Indian tribes. For his contribution to the Allied victory was awarded two more times, and after the war he worked as a teacher." If all this is true, it seems English Wikipedia should have an article about him (and others decorated recently in November). I slapped tags on the Greek article, and did leave a note with the author el:Συζήτηση_χρήστη:ΑΝώΔυΝος#Έντουαρντ Άντριου Χάρτζο, who does also edit here on enwp occasionally so @ΑΝώΔυΝος: it would be good to have your input also. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll fix it as soon as possible, kind regards, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is about Edmund Harjo, the Seminole Code Talker. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
That's right, but I've already created an article here. Please check and correct name, if necessary. Kind regards, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Turns out Edmond Harjo already had a fairly decent, cited article. Have redirected. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native American religion[edit]

We have a tendentious editor on Native American religion, who is reverting and degrading the article by using bad sourcing (blogs, unsourced webpages), re-adding bad sources that are cut, reverting other editors to re-establish bare URLs as sources, and adding heavily repetitive text. Editor is taking all improvements as "attacks" or something, and reverting, but staying under 3RR. More eyes may help stop it from going to the tendentious editor board. Problematic editor has been blocked for sockpuppeting in past. - CorbieV 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Will look. That said, one problem with Native American materials is that a lot of "scholarly" sources are hogwash and some of these blogs and informal web pages are actually accurate, just poorly done. Solid raw URLs can be quickly fixed with reflinks (see "Tools" tab off my user page). But crap editing is crap editing and socking needs to be slapped. I'll see what I think Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Follow up:I"m OK with the version of Moxy's last edit; some of the material that other editor is trying to add has a point, but it's being put poorly, with overly emotional phrasing and bad sourcing, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That whole general area of content is fraught with "bad titles" which are OR or appropriative/misrepresentative in nature, e.g. Category:Haida gods/Category:Haida deities, Category:Kwakwaka'wakw mythology and a lot of that does come from so-called scholarly sources, which as MontanaBW often notes are bunk, and regarded as such by native peoples. Imposing European ideas of deity and "mythology" is very much {{systemic bias}} but as much as the issue does get raised for dealing with, things go on as if normal (when not really acceptable and often very OR, as in naming Sisiutl, a spirit-being, as a "god" and also writing it from the Kwakwaka'wakw context when the word itself is Skwxwu7mesh in origin. So much bunk out there, and yes, quite often COI band/people sites, which are near-invariably POV about history, are where accurate information comes from. The Wikipedia "thing" against using blogs as information sources is also a systemic bias, whether about this kind of stuff or e.g. politics or corporatism.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions how you would fix this without raising greater problems? How would we distinguish between those sites which are accurate and those which are not? Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a whitelist/blacklist situation, and greylist for those which are POV but contain facts not seen anywhere else? The hurdle is persuading those who "run" (or presume to) WPRS and WPV or police/wikicop them at RMs/CfDs that some blogs are OK; it would be handy to have a "certified by IPNA list" or some such; one comment I have been seeing a lot of unpublished theses around lately, and not sure how to treat that....unless the thesis is web-published maybe....... the same situation re the validity of blogs vs so-called "reliable" sources i.e. the mainstream media for the most part, is the bias in the latter and often complete fabrication of facts and ongoing editorializing; this applies not just to native affairs but politics in general. In BC, the only really reliable political news is from independent reporters and independent papers, for example. Per native "blogs", this one and its second page are absorbing reads, and cited....but probably not acceptable to RS-cops in all their all-too-oft severity.Skookum1 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
the gods/deities/mythology thing I've used Transformer (spirit-being) instead of "immense shape shifting creature" as was in Camchin.Skookum1 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Coyote (mythology) seems particularly "weak", and used to be maybe Coyote (trickster) or Coyote (spirit); the "mythology" dab there now is probably because of the existence of the "mythology" cats/paradigm......a wiki-compromise/equivocation that, like so many, fails in validity and context.Skookum1 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Masters' and Doctoral theses have been used as RS in the past on other articles, I'd say they can be defended if they have good sourcing themselves, evidence of review by professorial types and such. Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

After they have been submitted, they are regarded as being published. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Masters theses are sometimes relatively trivial papers. It would have to be exceptional for me to be happy with it - perhaps the sole piece of work for the degree (ie no exams, just the paper), and that's just for starters. I've seen enough of them to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 18:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Here, I'd say the quality of the research is what counts, particularly if they did things like interview tribal elders or spiritual leaders, that sort of thing. Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Coast Salish defensive sites is an example of an article spawned by one paper and it seems two of the sources used for that paper; the old title of that page was identical to that of the paper; it's about one location in the lowermost Fraser Canyon; not all Coast Salish defensive sites. Salishan oral literature started similarly, with only Skwxwu7mesh and Selisch (Montana Salish) as elements; its title has also been changed from the original; "oral literature" to me is a mild oxymoron; Salish oral tradition is "safer" and more authentic; I haven't had time to add various other-tribe materials to it due to....never mind. Like the other, it's an omnibus title with particularist content. On the other hand, one of the best pieces of modern writing on the Fraser Canyon War is a master's thesis in geography from, I think, UVic, and in its preamble discusses the interesting chasm between US and Canadian sources on the shared history of the Pacific Northwest and the triple reality of the non-indigenous populations; British, American and Chinese. The author was a student of Cole Harris, whose The Resettlement of British Columbia is a population/historical geography (he's a geographer). So not all these are bad, but yes, some are trivial in nature, or have been used as the basis of articles on what should be general topics with broader and deeper refs. And yes, often without "elder content"...a similar situation in autobiographies and topics such as war history or settlement history are not generally used for history articles on non-indigenous titles/content. Authenticity of content should be paramount; not that it is just in print and might have reviews and is therefore "reliable".Skookum1 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw wrote, "one problem with Native American materials is that a lot of 'scholarly' sources are hogwash and some of these blogs and informal web pages are actually accurate, just poorly done." I agree completely. Which is why, when editing in this topic, I'm far more prone to leaving in unsourced text if I know it to be accurate. In this particular case, though, the sources were not accurate, but were non-Native sources with bad info that didn't source the content. I have no idea why the user was so attached to them. Moxy's edit looks to be the way I left it, prior to "The Good Doctor" editorializing again. As I told "The Good Doctor," most of his points are valid, but they are already made in the article, and he doesn't need to constantly re-state them and editorialize. All that said, I agree with comments here that the article is rather a mess and needs a lot more cleanup than I've managed to do in this initial run at it. Thanks for adding it your watchlists and moving forward with it. - CorbieV 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The very huge problem with this argument is that it leads to a subversion of wikipedias criteria for reliable sources, which in turn leads to original research. Who decides which academic books are "hogwash" and which personal websites are "pretty accurate"? I personally dont trust either Skookum1 or Montanabw to make that judgment. I wouldnt even trust myself to make that judgment most of the time. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am glad you also don't trust your own judgement any more than ours, lest we have a serious discussion about how On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.  ;-) That said, it is pretty easy to spot the "hogwash" in academe by their evidence of either race bias or over-romanticization of Native people or culture. It's also not that difficult to assess quality native sources by looking at issues of authorship, support by the tribe or tribal elders, and so on. A solid group of three or four knowledgable editors can suss it out. I remember back a few years ago when we were trying to bust the ItsLassieTime sock (and then clean up the hundreds of copyvios that user created) I had the worst time trying to remove a bit in a rodeo article that user inserted that they doggedly clung to because it was sourced to some scholarly work by some individual who clearly knew squat about rodeo but somehow managed to get her article past some peer reviewers- it contained a claim that EVERY rodeo began with a parade down the main street of the host town, which is utter nonsense (yes, many do, but far from all). That's an example of academic "hogwash." One has to remember that occasionally WP:IAR applies. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New discussion at AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inu-Yupiaq. Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Google map added as EL to List of Alaska Native tribal entities[edit]

Is this acceptable as an EL for this article?[1] - see also WP:ELN#Editor adding Google maps he/she created using Wikipedia sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I tossed it as not WP:RS. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Will anyone be at Wikimania? I will be there and would enjoy meeting anyone interested in this project. I've recently been trying to get more involved! Kaitymh (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sioux Lawsuits[edit]

Dear indigenous peoples experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it and begins improving it. Any takers? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no time to work on this, but I userfied it into my own sandbox, so if no one else steps up, it will be in long term storage for later. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. You moved it, but it still has the notification that it may be deleted under dg-g13. Just make any improvement and save, and that will delay deletion for six months. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America 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) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

American Indian or Native American?[edit]

There's currently a discussion on Washington Re****ns page about whether "American Indian" or "Native American" would be better to use in the body of the article. I am under the impression "Native American" is preferred, but honestly am not well read on the subject. Would informed folks mind commenting on the talk page and voice their opinion and reasoning? Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Chinook Jargon place names[edit]

Category:Chinook Jargon place names has been nominated for deletion/upmerging, with a suggestion that List of Chinook Jargon place names be upmerged. Please add any comments to the CfD.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous Knowledge Experiment presentation at WikiIndaba 2014 is now online[edit]

The WikiIndaba 2014 sessions are now online at YouTube. This includes a presentation on an Indigenous Knowledge Experiment in Namibia. Informative and recommended. -- Djembayz (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Native American tribes in Maryland[edit]

Article request: Would anyone be willing to create an article on Native American tribes in Maryland, along the lines of Native American tribes in Virginia? Thanks. Solar-Wind (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible bias of Native American editors[edit]

A notice on this page currently goes like this, but when I added the bold text, Montanabw quickly reverted it, and again when I put it back.

A big welcome to all people of indigenous, Native American, and First Nations heritage reading this page! We hope you enjoy participating in Wikipedia. We are especially happy to have your help in improving the diversity of Wikipedia coverage. Please feel free to leave a note on the talk page of this WikiProject, or at Wikipedia:Systemic bias if you run into problems here. (Note that, as with everyone else, you too may be susceptible to systemic bias when editing articles about your own people; please don't take it personally if anyone suggests this.) Also please note, there are two other wikis, The Native American Encyclopedia wiki and NativeWiki, that are dedicated to capturing documentation of oral traditions, if it turns out your Native American/First Nations material gets deleted from Wikipedia. And yes, it is possible to start your own Wikipedia in your own language. We'd be happy to support you in this. (Leave a note if you need help setting up a new language, or with fonts.)

He views it alternately as condescending and as redundant because there aren't more than "five" Native American editors who will be reading it anyway. I dispute these claims, because (1) it only states that Native American editors can be as biased as anyone else when editing pages about their own cultures (I think it'd be more condescending to put them on a pedestal as though they can do no harm) and (2) if there being few Native editors means this part of the message isn't necessary, why is the rest of the message necessary? I'd like to seek a consensus here. Tezero (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It IS condescending, as it really is saying "hey you silly Native people, you are too biased to be objective and we smart white people are going to point that out to you, and if you don't like, it go elsewhere." What a pile of nonsense. I happen to be 100% white Northern European Protestant, but I don't see similar cautions directed to me at WP:SWEDEN or WP:GERMANY or [{WP:NORWAY]] or similar such places. Frankly, the bit about the Native wikis probably should go too. This is probably one reason there are very few editors who self-identify as Native American/First Nations here (though a plethora of "I have some Native ancestry, I think" folks). I'm snarking to say five, but given that I am white and only about three wikipedians have self-identified at this project as of significant Native heritage AND actively editing (well, one just retired) I may not be exaggerating. Oh yeah, and I'm also not a "he, though that is irrelevant here. Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That's OTHERSTUFF; I think this kind of notice should be on those projects, too, but I'm unwilling to boldly add it there if the discussions will go like this one has so far. What do you mean "this is probably one reason" - do you think a significant number of Natives read the edit while it was live? Or do you think it's part of some nebulous larger trend of demeaning non-whites? (If so, I encourage you to re-read the part about all peoples being susceptible to this. For example, my heritage to the extent that it's represented in my userboxes [the main parts of it] is Czech, Welsh, and Arab, and I fully accept that I could be biased in favor of any of those peoples.) Apologies about your gender, though; I could've sworn I'd seen the "male" box on your page, but neither gender is there; that must've been someone else's I had open at the time. Tezero (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal, and note that it was included/added by User:Uyvsdi who claims to be indigenous and an academic, but reverted the name of the Skokomish tribal government from the one I'd moved it to, which is their own official name on their own website, claiming it wasn't official and moving it back to the US government's name for them (probably an outdated list). THAT is systemic bias. Also at least one aboriginal editor has left in disgust; the names for his people's articles that he started have been changed by overly-earnest guideline-happy Wikipedians who know nothing about his people and are obsessed with "Use English" and 'anglicized' names to ones used by government/corporate sources i.e. the colonialist biased sources; Sta7mes is now Stawamus (the older anglicization from a time when the 'w' could denote a glottal stop, which the 7 is, and Skwxwu7mesh both category and main page (and template) were anglicized to Squamish by people who didn't like the 7 and thought it was "gibberish", one didn't even know who they were and thought they were the Suquamish and didn't have any idea, and didn't care, when it was pointed out that Squamish in English has a very dominant primary usage as the name of a prominent town in British Columbia; and taht many of the Skwxwu7mesh population aren't in that town but in North Vancouver (perhaps the majority). I was denounced and baited and insulted for trying to RM and CfD that back to where the indigenous author had created them at.
I'm also (very) white, like Montanabw, and one snotty admin has crapped on me for daring "to speak for them [when I'm white and have no right to)"...but they wn't speak for themselves (because Wikipedia alienates them by high-schoolish invocations of academic shibboleths and not-correct language etc), or when they do, as with @OldManRivers: (I'm pinging him and know him outside wikipedia in FB but he won't see it, he thinks Wikipedia is bullshit because of all this crap); but I'm "pro-native" and in fact built most of the indigenous hierarchies and indigenous article structure in BC and parts of Canada and the PacNW; now completely messed up by people from abroad invokoing colonially-biased sources, and in the case of Squamish claiming that the widespread Canadian meaning of that term is irrelevant, that "global usage" should prevail, i.e. academic sources in the UK and US; even though Canadians sources far outweigh them, in other words Canadian sources are discredited and the big countries sources are supposed to prevail; but in that case they dno't even outnumber them. So there's an anti-Canadian systemic bias I've encountered too. This also was used to bugger up an attempt to revert BOLD changes by a "certain someone" which was across the board and global, and installed outdated and/or derisive names, in RMs closed by someone from Ireland' who boasted that her lack of expertise allowed her to be neutral which she was not (Chipewyan people is one example of that (Denesuline is the modern term, part of a large growing reality in Canada where indigenous endonyms are now an accepted norm, which is shit all over by "global usage" fanatics who don't even read the subject matter or have ever edit the articles but want to pontificate on titles and such, and use their collective ignorance and paternalistic attitudes to "vote" against needed name changes. A raft of these have gone through, Montanabw knows some of the ones I mean, where archaic terms were imposed, and the RMs were vociferously fought off, with the mover claiming that the native peoples' names for themselves were irrelevant and that academic sources should prevail...namely t hose of the linguistics community abroad (who need to update themselves); he went so far as to claim that native sources were "parochial" as if academic and government sources weren't.
It's true that User:OldManRivers' content in the many articles he started (including many of the Kwakwaka'wakw ones, he's both Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw/'Namgis ("Nimpkish" in teh old anglicization) have POV content issues, as do many others, such as the Nuu-chah-nulth series (which btw montanabw seem heavily contributed/edited and expanded by their own people/governments/orgs and internal scholars) but that's a different matter than systemic bias, which is about who t he sources are and who they are not. And re native editors contributing with the native viewpoint, the reality is that in many cases they are the only source, especially for individual bands and tribal governments; yet Uyvsdi claimed re the Nuxalk that "there are always sources" without even having a grasp of who or what she was talking about, or providing any (this was in relation to the need for a Nuxalk art article). People weighing in with sysetmically biased sources adn t heir viewpoints and terminologies is a Big Bad Issue, but since indigenous editors give this "white man's book" a wide berth because it doesn't speak from their frameworks or even get their names right means that people who think they are 'dead' peoples and not living, breathing people are having sway here; I spent a chunk of last night changing some really improper content in [Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast]] where they were spoken of as historical peoples with modern tribes/bands only "identifying with the historical peoples" as if they weren't them de facto. The tendency of linguists and other academic sources/editors to treat people as laboratory subjects or museum objects is part of the problem; as is the wikipedia mob rule in RM s and CfDs and elsewhere where the uneducated-on-the-topic or completely illogical/unsubstantiated comments are treated as "votes" - quantity over quality. I support the removal of those lines, they're patronizing to the piont of being insulting and alienating.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Also in a similar fashion, native official sources are generally discredited in favour of government/corporate/foreign sources, even though they are, as in the case of the the Skokomish, sovereign governments; in BC where there are few treaties they claim outright sovereignty, as is being supported in court decisions on constitutionality and such; so whose sources is the valid one? The colonizing power (US or Canada) or that of the sovereign nations who are the topic?Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not a helpful addition, writers writing about groups that are not their own are of course just as biased as writers writing about their own group. We would never suggest that WHite Americans should be particularly careful when writing about White American culture due to the fact that their views might be biased. The lines should be removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • But aside from, say, Japanophiles, they'd be biased in opposite directions, and I daresay bias is generally more strong towards one's own group. And I think this about white Americans very well could be suggested; it's just that there's no White American WikiProject. (I wouldn't object to one being created, but it would be massively controversial.) Tezero (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree anyone who participates in a project based on interest has some kind of bias - frankly the idea that ethnic group membership constitutes a source of bias is borderline racist. What does the direction of bias have to do with this - that would just mean that the note should also include a note to non- native american editors that they might be biased against native americans. And for your other point I would estimate that about half of all wikiprojects are white american wikiprojects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Half? That seems kind of arbitrary. It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years, but it's not as though the projects are artificially excluding other races. As for the note about bias against Native Americans, that's implied by the link to the Systemic bias page. And against what races is this idea "borderline racist"? I think it's true for all identity groups, and not only ethnic ones. That's basically what systemic bias is; I take issue at the idea that Native Americans can't be subject to it just like the rest of us. Tezero (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It is borderline racist, not because it discriminates (assuming that you have made the same suggestion at all the other ethnic and national wikiprojects), but because it reduces to individual editors to their ethnic group membership. Just like not all white people are biased against native americans or other ethnic groups, neither can we assume that all members of other ethnic groups are biased in favor of their own group, because people are individuals and should be treated as such. A conflict of interest is exactly this - a conflict of individual interests, not of the possibility of group membership producing some bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, why do you then support the "Systemic bias" inclusion? That's only implying, "If those nasty white people are mean to you and you can't handle it yourself, we'll help." It reduces both Natives and non-Natives to those identity markers. Tezero (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems you dont understand what systemic bias is. It has nothing to do with nasty white people or with identity markers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then, what is it, if you think you understand better than I do? And why should we pretend Native Americans can't too be subject to it? Tezero (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYSTEMIC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
" It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years, but it's not as though the projects are artificially excluding other races." LOLOL you gotta be kidding me. In Canada, they were stripped of their status as human beings, a system of deliberately dehumanizing and stripping them of their culture by taking their children and beating the hell out of them for daring to speak their own languages, to end their reliance on the fecundity of the land and turn them into workers, a system were missionaries and academics persuaded them to burn or sell their artwork and regalia in the name of Christendom, where academics and politicians persistently treated them as bound for extinction; even in 1970, the Chretien "White Paper" (a kind of government report/policy proposal) called for outright assimilation (Chretien was later PM, and current PM Harper is on the same course, as have been the last two "Liberal" premiers of BC, who represent the mining and other resources industries who have raped the land that natives still technically own (no treaties were ever signed in most of BC).
Your very attitude is part of the self-justifying "systemic bias" you seem to have no grasp whatsoever is about; they do not want white people dictating to them what they should be called, what should be done with them etc (unless, of course, those white people agree with them), they do not want old fusty reports by churches (the same churches who raped and beat and killed their children), the governments who disenfranchised them and sold their land from beneath their feet, and forbade them to leave their reserves without a permit, and the corporations who participated in that theft, and have fought against native rights and were the ones behind the deliberate smallpox now known to have been govt-organized in colonial BC. You pretend that there are two sides to every story; that's like saying the Devil is equal to God, or evil has the same right to speak as good, or that falsity and pretense have as much value as truth and decency.
The line is offensive, purely and simply; if you don't get that why don't you go visit Wounded Knee or the Navajo Nation or Attawapiskat or the various bands/reserves of the St'at'imc focussed on Lillooet. Or go read OldManRiver's blog, "Liberated yet?" (he's very educated and articulate and, unlike you, under no illusions about "fairness"...because his people have never had any, quite frankly) and see what they have to say about "systemic bias"; don't tell them what it is, they already bloody well know all about it. #IdleNoMore. Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Government sources are biased, mainstream media is incredibly biased, academic sources in their ivory towers have been and, despite some posturing, and in Canada a very aboriginally-sympathetic group of professors and authors there is exception to that history of academic "bottling and pickling" of cultures that those institutions participated in the theft of cultural objects in the name of "preservation" or "combatting superstition". that lots of Wikipedia articles are based on the Catholic Encyclopedia is noxious. Native sources should have more weight than misrepresentations and lies and omissions in e.g. the Vancouver Sun, or the outright slander that SunMedia (Canada's FoxNews) has put out, particularly in their campaign against Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More movement. Your gall in asking US to define systemic bias as if none of this were a reality, that the news, government, corporate information avalanche against them has been fair, and that they should be advised of their bias, is hilariously and also sickeningly vulgar and rude.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am Native American and after reading Tezero's attitude above and supremacist opinions like "It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years" and noticing what page he chose to wade into and see how ugly he could make it, he's lucky it hasn't gotten a lot uglier like it easily could have. All I can say is I sincerely hope I don't see his name on any more Native articles or ever run into him again. (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at his user page as to his interests and usual topic areas; he's only worked on two native language articles that I can see, before this.Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You people seriously think it's okay to fight the flames of genocide hundreds of years ago and biased coverage in religious publications with more flames of pretending Native American editors today can do no wrong? And you call me ignorant? It was a mistake of me to ever believe this project was capable of reason. And yes, I am lucky, lucky that I didn't sink more time into this discussion before finding out for sure that this project doesn't care about honest editing and universal human weaknesses, only about identity politics and hatred. I hope I don't see my name around here again, either. Tezero (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Get a grip on the reality; "honest editing" means given respect where it's due to the subject matter, same as with BLP, except we're talking about groups of living people, not individuals. Early on in Wikipedia there was an earnest effort to be inclusive and encouraging towards native contributors, whether "COI/AUTO" ones from people/bands/tribes as occasional editors, or regular editors; such as the now-departed OldManRivers and User:Phaedriel, both of them now gone from Wikipedia; your dismissive and patronizing attitude that their contributions are "just as much system bias as any others" is jejune in the extreme; this is not about promoting identity politics and hatred, it is respecting historical reality and native sources rather than equivocating about them. Given the history involved and ongoing repression and systemic bias in media and government and other sources, it is important for credibility of Wikipedia within the native community at large that Wikipedia address their concerns, rather than babble about "honest editing" when dishonesty is on the record as part of the experience that they have been treated with. An example of your own systemic bias towards them is the complete misapprehension about "genocide hundreds of years ago". The Great Smallpox of 1862 in the Pacific Northwest was only 152 years ago, the last residential school in Canada only closed in 1976, the Inuit from around Hudson Bay were forcibly relocated to the Far North, over 1500 miles or more and more than ten degrees of latitude north of where they lived, by government order and without government support, in the 1930s.
As we speak, Canadian native peoples are fighting the tar sands and the associated pipelines, with the threat of more than just protests coming, and implications of the federal government using a heavy hand (=force) to get its way if they do blockade pipeline construction; in my hometown and the region around it, salmon beds are being disrupted by corporate-instigated projects, and the Mount Polley Mine tailings pond near Likely, British Columbia collapsed a few days ago, with toxic tailings now flowing into the Fraser River system, due in my hometown in a few days; it is the location of the Bridge River Fishing Grounds; a record salmon run, the first in decades since the fishery was almost wiped out by commercial fishing in the last hundred years (a resource that they owned lock, stock and barrel before they were excluded from it to advance white fishing interests) is about to be poisoned (a food supply depended on by elders, who cannot eat modern foods); it goes on an on TODAY, and you are under the delusion that the genocide was hundreds of years ago, rather than ongoing; natives are dying of cancer due to the tar sands ripping up the land and industry sources dominate the "oil sands" article (a systemic bias of the plethora of corporate sources published to establish that newspeak-ism), and at Attawapiskat and elsewhere, effluent and other environmental damage associated with diamond mines has poisoned entire communities, which do not receive adequate compensation or economic return (not anywhere near, not even a fraction of the wealth being taken from their lands, without the consultation and approval mandated by court decisions, despite the federal government's attempt to discredit land claims and native rights. Economic colonialism and anti-native political activism is rife and well-funded, and YOu want to talk about "genocide hundreds of years ago".
Get a grip and educate yourself before you come in here with an edit war to try to force a highly contentious (obviously contentious, in case you haven't noticed) and if you haven't noticed by responses from two native editors for far as "offensive" attempt to taint their contributions as "biased"; which will further discourage native editors from participating or givign any credence whatsoever to what is written in Wikipedia about them. Like I said, go visit some real native people and try and tell them that they are biased "as is everyone". Equivocation is part of the toolkit of the Prince of Lies, and amounts to yet more systemic bias. Go to the Tsuu Tina reserve west of Calgary, go to Fort Macleod, Regina, Winnipeg, Kahnwahke and Akewsasne and more; go there and see how your patronizing attitude is received. I suggest you wear kevlar.Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd interpret "for hundreds of years" as running up to today, and not as "hundreds of years ago". Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When Maunus and Skookum1 agree on something, as they do here (mostly) it's got to be gospel! Now go away, Tezero, consensus is about four or five to one against you. We are through here. Montanabw(talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

name of Native American Encyclopedia wiki[edit]

First I've heard of it and NativeWiki was in the discussion above; I have to wonder about the title, which is unsuitable for Canadian Aboriginal peoples and Alaska Natives and also for Mexican peoples and others not in the United States; it's its own systemic bias, and still occurs in many Wikipedia titles and occasionally in articles concerning Canadian peoples, though mostly that's been corrected now. Mostly e.g. Native American stickball which I proposed moving yesterday to North American indigenous stickball, as it's played in Mohawk and other communities in Ontario. Various categories including Canadian and Alaskan content also still have "Native American" in their titles, and shouldn't.Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no fully neutral terms, some people find "indigenous" and "aboriginal" to be terrible and racist and prefer "native" or even "indian", and others have the opposite view. That is why instead of trying to find the neutral title we should stick to the nomenclature used in the sources on which a given article is to be built. I don't see a problem with native american applying to indigenous groups in Mexico and Latin America. Canada is a special case because of the historical distinction between the Inuits and Amerinds - but from a US or general English language view point there is no reason Inuits could not be considered Native Americans (except that fact that the term was first used for US. natives). We can't use a one size fits all solution for nomenclature but should use a healthy blend of sources, respect and common sense in each particular case. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You're USian, of course you don't see the difference; Mexicans call them indigenos or indios, they do not call them Native Americans. USians also commonly call Canadian aborignal peoples, including Inuit, "Native Americans", and likewise they use that for Alaska Natives too, whether Tlingit or Haida or other non-"Indian" peoples or not. Funny you would talk about systemic bias while being part of a very large, noticeable, one yourself, here defending it from your USian viewpoint. "from a US or general English language view point there is no reason Inuits could not be considered Native Americans" is hilariously biased and utterly wrong. @CambridgeBayWeather: I'm sure would agree (he's married to one).Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No I am not, and no that is not what Mexicans call their native people. They call them indigenas, or pueblos originarios, or pueblos nativos. In Mexico "Americano" means "USian" and therefore Americanos Nativos are the indigenous people of the US. But this is not the Spanish wikipedia. As always the dimension of your ignorance is only trumped by that of your ego. And now I will tell you what the systemic bias is: it is the fact that two white men of predominantly european ancestry are discussing how best to represent the indigenous peoples of the Americas in wikipedia, each of them considering themselves to be defending the indigenous view. The difference between you and me is that I am aware of this problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I'm NOT??? Geezus, get a Q@%Q#$%Q$ grip on your arrogance towards me; presumptive and patronizing as always; yes I'm white, but I'm here speaking because indigenous people give this place a wide berth because of the people who dont' get that problem. Shitting on me because I'm white and so 'have no right to speak for them" which you've implied before is bullshit and hornswoggle and yet MORE AGF and NPA from you.
MY ego. Go buy a mirror. You've done nothign but snot your nose at mek often rudely, since you took your first shot at me, and have violated NPA and AGF far worse than I have ever been accused of, and never been punished for it as you should have. Go shove it, I'm going to bed, it'd midnight here.Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

− :::::::"Canada is a special case because of the historical distinction between the Inuits and Amerinds" is a further example of your skewed language/persepective and your lack of appreciation of the reality or your own inability to see your own systemic bias, which I've encountered in ugly terms more than once (I of course saw that nasty bit you reverted as if it could be hidden). For one thing, your comment ignores the Metis, and "Amerinds" is an academic biased term that is not used much in Canada, to the point of sounding odd; Census Canada uses "North American Indian" and not "Amerindian", and that term certainly would not be used for the Metis; most FN people would find either Amerind or Amerindian somewhat offensive but they might tolerate it, though not think much of the academic using it and wish they would "get with the times". Up here in the Great White North (well, currently I'm in Thailand but never mind that for now) there is an emergent cultural and political and linguistic reality you have shown yourself time and aware unaware of and/or unconcerned with, despite yabbering about how you work with indigenous peoples; you clearly don't work with any Canadian ones, that's for sure. Me I've worked for them and lived in their communities, and will again (Lillooet is the local "metropolis" and more or less my hometown; my original hometown at Shalalth has been demolished by corporate restructuring, even the name of it has been wiped from the map). I've lived in the reality and have many native friends, including elders; you visit it to study it. Big difference.Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Chill out people, as far as I am concerned, we can just use a lot of slashes (Native/Indigenous/Aboriginal/Indio/Alaskan/Inuit/etc.) if we need to not insult any one group. We do need to be careful with neologisms that no one actually uses, such as AmerInd or USian (though that one is kind of clever!) ... I think "Indigenous peoples of North America" itself was originally hashed out after much strum und drang. Generally I like to try very hard to use words that people themselves can accept being used to describe them (i.e. in my own case I'm an American of Northern European ancestry, bit for simplicity's sake I can live with being called "white" or "caucasian", but I would prefer not to be called "whitey" or a "cracker") If people accept a term to describe themselves in a broad sense (as we do see at least some of the time with "Native people" with a capital N, and most of the time with indigenous) even with some grumbling, we have to use something. I'd suggest that we not bring naming problems here without a solution. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Indigenous" was indeed hashed out amid much sturm and drang, though civil and without any b.s. about whitey butting and speaking out of turn; in those days active editors included User:OldManRivers ('Namgis/Skwxwu7mesh) and User:Phaedriel (Comanche) as well as @CJLippert: who I believe is aboriginal (Cree, Ojibwe, I'm not sure what) and certainly has done a lot for the Anishinaabe subproject of IPNA/NorthAmNative; CambridgeBayWeather's family and offspring are Inuit. My slash-chains are to group terms, because of the (to me) error and/or abuse of the term "Native American" and NB "Alaska Native" is a formal term, like how capital-A "Aborginal" is in Canada, being distinct from "Native Americans in the Lower 48". Hawaiians are also not Native Americans. All this was hashed out long ago, I don't remember my harasser being present at any of those discussions. Point is that "indigenous" was decided on because of the problems with various other words, even though it, too, has issues, namely somewhat POV, but it is "self-determinational" i.e. it is a term preferred by (some) natives themselves, usually of the educated/political/activist kind as both OldManRivers and Phaedriel. It was agreed it was a loaded word, but OMR especially went BOLD and used it; it was also the choice of this WikiProject. As for "USian", that I learned in Wikipedia, and of course it avoids the various vaguenesses of "American".
All this of late has become somewhat confused by the new supreme court decision in Canada whereby "Status Indian" now includes Non-Status Indians and Metis, hitherto excluded from that term; whether that also makes them "First Nations" or not now is kinda vague; one thing I do know is that in adjectival use the usage is evolving into "first nations [noun]", as in first nations person or first nations ancestry, and capital-FN First Nation is used for an band government; "nation" is commonly used for a range of things, from an ethnic group as a whole down to an individual band; and in Canadian English is a politically loaded term because of its dual meaning in French and its role in Quebec politics; where les autochthones (the French word for aboriginal peoples) is a normative term and speaking of "nations" gets people in the streets.Skookum1 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
1) I have heard of NativeWiki and also know that the site is now defunct. 2) I am neither Ojibwe nor Cree but work in an Ojibwe Reservation and travel to many Anishinaabe communities in US and Canada, which is also how I am exposed to Cree. 3) Part of the US-centric language in IPNA partically stems from many articles were based on Hodge's Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico and for the indigenous groups in Canada, it means in article improvement process, need to reframe the language to a less US-centric language. 4) US does distinguish between "Native Americans" (i.e. American Indians in the United States) and "Alaskan Natives" (i.e. Eskimoan peoples (Yupik and Inuit) and the Aleuts of Alaska). Unlike Canada that have only the Inuits, US is just a titch more complicated here. 5) As English is the de facto official language, English in its all vagueness does provide confusion. But as English is not the only language spoken in the US, other long-time US languages, namely Spanish, French, and Platdeutsch, prominent native languages such as Navajo, Yupik, Ojibwe, and Lakota, and newer languages of significant number of speakers in the US, such as Russian, German, Italian, Vietamese, Chinese and Japanese, this is a conversation people are having, but at a snail's pace. On the other hand in Canada, this is very much a topic at front and centre, and has been all of Canada's history. Canada is more experienced culturally in this matter, though experienced doesn't mean smooth. And US can in this case learn from Canada's successes and failures, especially in the language used in speaking with and about the Aboriginal population. 6) First Nation is defined as American Indians, Inuit and their Metis in Canada. This is a legal term. As for official government-to-government relations happen or not depends on the community (usually a Band) is Status or not. Non-status groups wouldn't have such government-to-government relations, although they are recognised as part of that ethnological group known as the First Nation. But even that is a "weasel word", and I totally agree that when "nation" (non-capital usage) is used, it brings about confusion, as "Nation" is legally defined word while "nation" is not. But Canada isn't the only ones facing this issue, as US is also facing this issue, but in the US, only "Indian" is legally defined and codified in 25 USC, and it doesn't reflect the reality of what people generally use (Native, American Indian, Native American, or a specific ethnographic name, such as Ojibwe, Lakota, Navajo, Salish, Cherokee, etc.) In the US, because of the UN, legally "Indigenous" is the preferred term over "Aboriginal" or "Native", though at one time "Aboriginie" was the preferred term to cover "American Indian" and its "Half-Breed" (i.e. Metis) population. So, slashes can be used in discussions, I believe, but in the articles, it should be country-specific, unless the population straddles, then a little more language finesse is required. But this is an on-going conversation happening even outside of WikiSpace, and an answer isn't going to appear by tomorrow, so all we can do here is be flexible. CJLippert (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well stated, CJLippert. I am wondering if the project page here should contain some such analysis, with sources. Sort of a MOS guide or sorts; i.e. this was the first time I realized that the UN definition was the deciding factor on the IPNA titling decision. Worth enshrining that. Also may be worth noting when to use "Indian" or "First Nation" in the legal/political sense, when "Native American' or "Aboriginal people" is preferred, adding the caveat that when possible, call people by their own ethnic identity i.e. Salish, Crow, whatever, and so on. I would not intend this as a dictat, but more of an educational style guide. Might also be worth a head up of what people are most apt to collide with the US/Canada thing, i.e. Blackfeet/Blackfoot, Cree, etc. Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)