Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

AfC submission

See Draft:Jasper Parrish. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac move

At Talk:Pontiac I have made a move request suggesting that the car brand is not the primary topic of this name. Your input may be helpful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloan dwellings

The Ancestral Puebloan dwellings article and its subarticles include all precontact Southwestern and Fremont culture as being "Ancestral Puebloan." Should these articles be renamed to reflect their true scope or should all non-Ancestral Puebloan entries be removed??? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Can you give us a bit more background on this dispute? Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no dispute. I stumbled upon a giant chunk of lesser edited articles about prehistoric cultures and sites in the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, in which someone lumped all sorts of cultures—the larger ones being Mogollon, Hohokam, and Patayan, which the Ancestral Puebloans clearly states are separate cultures. I poked around on scholar.google.com to see if there was a sudden trend to call every culture in the SW USA/NE Mexico "Pueblo," but no, that does not appear to be the case. 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs)

Apparently, as Talk:Ancestral Puebloan dwellings reveals, the base article was too long, so in 2011 User:Freechild split lists into five smaller articles, List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico, et al.

Is there a mechanism for changing the name of multiple articles at once? "Ancient" is questionable since many were used until Spanish arrived and some are still used today (Taos, Acoma, etc.). "Dwellings" is less than ideal, since the structures also include ceremonial spaces and storage rooms. "Pueblo peoples" covers some but not all the of AZ, NM, and UT listings and none of the Chihuahua listings. I don't know if anyone here has a special interest in archaeological parlance, but it seems better to rename the articles than delete all the information that doesn't pertain to Pueblo/Ancestral Pueblo peoples. Yuchitown (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Yes, but if there are only a few, maybe just list them here and post merge tags where needed - or boldly move the worst offenders. I vaguely remember some edit dispute over the word Anasazi that was resolved by renaming everything Ancient Pueblo people or something...sounds like bad titles are the tip of the iceberg here... ? Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the Chihuahua list since none of those are considered to be Pueblo (the pre-Columbian cultures most likely have Pueblo descendants, but they also have non-Pueblo descendants). I'll wait awhile to see if anyone has a suggestions to the ideal name for the others. I noticed that Wikipedia has a mishmash of Mexican and American terms, since there aren't particularly good names for the region/collection of archaeological cultures in question. 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Remaining articles:

• Ancestral Puebloan dwellings—this needs an overhaul by someone who really knows the cultures
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Arizona
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Colorado—these appear to all be Ancestral Pueblo, so might not need a rename, except perhaps to be sync with the other lists
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in New Mexico—almost all Pueblo but not "Ancestral" Pueblo
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Utah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be best resolved by removing the word "Ancestral Puebloan" from the title and calling them all "ancient dwellings", since the sociological reference is a controversial factor, and the architectural title is not? I simply wanted to put all these similar types of dwellings into a list. Their cultural associations aren't relevant to that intention as far as I can see. • Freechild | talk to me 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Does 450 years ago constitute "ancient"? "Archaeological site" might be too broad since even structures from the 19th century (churches, etc.) can be archaeological. "Precontact" and "Prehistoric" don't fly because pueblos such as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas (est. 1682) and El Quartelejo Pueblo in Kansas (est. ca. 1696) are postcontact. Basically, there's not a good overarching term for the region, since Southwest cultures is Americentric and ignores Mexico. This encyclopedia is English-based but not US-based. I see "Oasisamerica" used in categories, which covers the region but is a Mexican term not widely embraced in the US—but it does imply Indigenous only. "Dwelling" is inadequate for reasons listed above.

Googling "Mogollon Sinagua Pueblo Hohokam" doesn't yield promising results for an overarching term. Perhaps List of Oasisamerica sites in Arizona, etc. is the best choice, with lots of redirects? Yuchitown (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Can't we just say "Precolumbian Southwest" or something simple? I had never heard the phrase "Oasisamerica" before. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the challenge. Not all of these sites are pre-Columbian, and these cultures extend to Mexico, so "Southwest" doesn't cover Northwest Mexico. Basically we need a way to describe the cultural region or combined complex of Hohokam, Mogollon, Sinagua, Patayan, and Pueblo cultures (and other, lessser known ones). Yuchitown (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

This was my challenge in the original article, including your acknowledgment that these cultures extend to Mexico. For that reason List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico should be added back to this conversation. Wherever term is chosen, I hope there is significant consideration given to the interrelatedness of these articles, not to their differences. If it's inappropriate to keep them together, that's find, but I think you see my intention. • Freechild | talk to me 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But none of the sites in Chihuahua were made by Ancient Pueblo peoples. "Pueblo" is not an umbrella term for the people of the region. So far, "Oasisamerica" is the only term that covers the region that takes both the US and Mexico into account. Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Koshare articles

After seeing a Facebook posting with photos of the Koshare Indian Dancers of the Koshare Indian Museum, I was shocked to find that such organizations exist, and surprised to find the WP articles based almost entirely on websites representing the Boy Scouts viewpoint. I have POV tagged both articles and would like to stimulate discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Blue Star Kachina

If you didn't read the talk page you'd think this was something real. Not sure if this can be fixed - are there any actual reliable sources discussing it and its New Age adherents? Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tina Fontaine

I have started an article regarding her murder, and would like others to review and contribute to it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article so far gives no indication that this person's death had a significant impact or that they were notable in life. I expect without those kinds of details it may soon be nominated for deletion. Rmhermen (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just lazy right now. The case is widely covered in Canada and has sparked renewed calls for an inquiry into aboriginal women's deaths. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd expand it, JMO. Lazy gets you to AfD...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ta'Kaiya Blaney

Could some kind editors please take a look at Ta'Kaiya Blaney? Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs expansion, big time, but might be able to pass GNG if someone does more work on it. Montanabw^(talk) 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Manitonquat

Could use more eyes on this. Looking through the sources, I'm not sure Talbot is even notable. Unless something's been added since I went through this last, most of the sources are small, new age presses or small newspapers. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Article was AfD'ed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat Now it's up again at deletion review. And... it's been recreated: Manitonquat (Medicine Story) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Manitonquat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manitonquat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

New book

Mining and Communities in Northern Canada: History, Politics, and Memory, edited by Arn Keeling and John Sandlos, 2016, University of Calgary Press. -- both historical and contemporary and new so I didn't want to include it in the Bibliography of Canadian history -- but might be useful for an existing article. Chronicle of Higher Education says "Combines archival and oral-historical approaches on the impact of mining on First Nations communities." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mexica Movement

I don't think that this article ( Mexica Movement ) should be a part of this project. It is a group of people who self identify as Indigenous and promote self-identification based solely on likelihood of ancestry. Are there guidelines as to what makes an article eligible for this project? I am Indigenous Mexican (Yucatec Maya) and our community and National definition is that being Indigenous is based on recognition of and reciprocity with an Indigenous community. The Mexica Movement does not meet this definition as its membership includes mainly people without community ties and without necessitating confirmation of ancestry. Ampzima (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It clearly falls under the sphere of interest of the project, and including it in the project does in no way mean that the movements claim to being indigenous is endorsed or validated. The reason a page is included in a project, is not the same as a category which categorizes the topic, but is simply a way for members with interests in specific topics to maintain overview of articles that fall within their shared interests. It is in the interest of members of this project to monitor the article on the Mexica Movement, for example to avoid that their problematic claims are represented in non-neutral ways. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I didn't realize I was already contributing to this project by correcting their claims on the article.Ampzima (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, correct false claims! From poking around in some precontact West Mexican indigenous articles, I can see that Wikipedia desperately needs more Indigenous Mexican perspective! Yuchitown (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yeah, I think it's within the scope. Teach the controversy at the article, remember AGF and NPOV. We're good here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates

I did some organizing on the Anishinaabe main page and added a considerable number of new links. A good share of the links I placed under the “General” heading though they may be better suited elsewhere. I created a “Tribes/Bands/First Nations -- Reservations” section’’. Information needed in the “Ojibwa”, “Oji-Cree” and “Saulteaux” subsections. I can only claim that the Odawa subsection is correct, but it still requires additional information. I changed the “Language” section to the “Anishinaabe Language” section with lotsa new links. Added an "External Links" section and put two links for seed. Did the same for "Further Reading". After much work I had a lightbulb moment that many of the links may be found in templates so I created a “Templates” section. Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Denisebk

• @Denisebk: can you wikilink the articles above so we can more easily see what you were doing? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In need of a new map of indian reservations in the United States

According to the BIA there are 326 indian reservation in the U.S. The map in the List of Indian reservations in the United States article includes only the 310 as of May 1996. Wonderful if a member of this WikiProject could either find or create a new up-to-date map. Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Denisebk

Wonder if the BIA website has anything... it would be PD-USGOV if they do... if anyone finds a URL, I can probably do the wikignoming to get it into commons. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Landless Chippewas

Category:Landless Chippewas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural appropriation#Issues around Warbonnet photo

Um, yeah. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotta merge these

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians. Preferably into the latter, simpler name, or perhaps a new title with both moved and redirects left behind. I'm kind of busy with other stuff, but will help if someone wants to do the heavy lifting... Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The articles indicate that these are separate things. One being only one of several descendant bands of the original. I think. 2602:304:B296:DBE0:CBA:90AE:9CE8:14F6 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:American Indian Movement

I have no idea how to undo this, but Category:American Indian Movement, which was well populated with articles pertaining to the American Indian Movement, was "speedily merged" into Category:Native American movements. This happened in two days, so no time for discussion. Category:Native American rights organizations already exists, so Category:Native American movements is redundant. I'm guessing the user SMcCandlish doesn't what AIM is and thought "Oh, American Indian—we don't use that term anymore." Anyone know how to undo this or at least contest it? Yuchitown (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

It could also be part of the ongoing effort to marginalize coverage of non-mainstream American political topics, all the while bludgeoning us with officialdom at every turn. Agree that this is going the wrong way. An AIM category would be more appropriate in this case because Category:Native American movements is vague enough to be redundant to multiple parent categories. As the AIM category was well populated with biographical articles, I would suggest the subcategory Category:American Indian Movement people, splitting off Category:Native American activists from the other parent categories. I gave up before getting to the exact prodecure, but figured out that the category was changed through WP:CFDS despite obviously being controversial. I would assume there's a place at WP:CFD to deal with that, but didn't see it before giving up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not involved with the topic whatsoever and have no personal stake in it at all, but I've actually heard that they prefer to be called American Indians, as Native American is in fact an offensive term to them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my aching back. The American Indian Movement is a movement. There's no such thing as the Native American Movement. *We* are just fine with American Indian. Read Native American name controversy for further perspective. The category needs to be restored. I just don't know how to begin the procedure. Yuchitown (talk)Yuchitown

But there are other Native American/American Indian movements than the AIM. But I agree that the AIM category should be restored and kept as a subcategory of Native American movements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Or be a subcat of the already existing Category:Native American rights organizations, which is a subcat of a subcat of Category:Indigenous rights. Between the pre-existing categories, everything should be covered. Yuchitown (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

No one mentioned anything about something with the exact name Native American Movement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have misread. I didn't realize AIM was specific to one group, not a general theme. My apologies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Yuchitown, AIM (which is a specific organisation) is "a subcat of the already existing Category:Native American rights organizations, which is a subcat of a subcat of Category:Indigenous rights. Between the pre-existing categories, everything should be covered." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I would like to see the AIM category restored. How does one go about correcting this? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: has stated here:[1] that this was a mistake on his part. I have asked him to revert the changes he made. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which changes would those be? I nominated a category for moving, CFD admins moved it, it was nominated for moving back to where it was, I supported that, and admins will move it back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:American Indian Movement has been nominated for discussion

Category:American Indian Movement, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Yuchitown (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)