Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Request for input on {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} "bug"

Hello! I recently noticed that the pages that use {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} should probably be changed over to use {{NorthAmNative}} with |anishinaabe=yes, since {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} suppresses any |importance= ranking (see for instance Talk:Zebulon Pike which has {{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe}} with |importance=low but shows up as |importance=???). I began a section on the broader template's talk page, after that was suggested to me on the AWB task I had requested to do this job. I'd appreciate if some more template-savvy members of this WikiProject could weigh in.

What I think should be done is that all pages that currently use {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} should be changed over to {{NorthAmNative}} with |anishinaabe=yes, and that {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} should be deleted, since it is redundant.James Hyett (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Just pinging this again to see if anyone had any more insight, or if I should go ahead with requesting the AWB task again. James Hyett (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

James Hyett; Did you request a bug-fix at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? They can help with that. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

GenQuest I did not, thanks for the tip! James Hyett (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples under attack

There is a concerted effort to delete a lot of articles on American Indians and Indigenous People of North America right now. I am not an alarmist and I don't believe that these attacks are malicious in intent but they are very real. For now it is centered around the Oglala Sioux and Cheyenne but could easily move to other tribes and nations. I do not believe that the guidelines of Wikipedia were meant to be weapons of exclusion when they were created, however, the guidelines are leaving room for those with their own personal opinion of rigidity to apply it with strict adherence, in the case of Indigenous People, and with no regard for the historical bias against them. They do not attack other articles, of the same caliber and similar topics, with the same ferocity as they do against these that have been nominated. It is quite disturbing as a descendant of American Indians myself, who can trace back my ancestry to those who walked the Trail of Tears. I am not asking Wikipedia to wright wrongs against Indigenous People. NO ONE here is at fault for what our ancestors may have or did do. It is about doing what is right now, not correcting what was done in the past. Please review these articles and please vote. If you don't feel like you can support these articles and regardless whether you agree or not, please support those who do vote on them. Kind words go a long way. I am a WARRIOR so I will fight when there is a just reason to. Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about this when a small group decided to deleted the article which was written about myself. I mentioned many other articles which in my opinion had lesser notability (by Wikipedia standards) than the one which was written about me. None of those articles were even put up for consideration. During the article's evaluation period, one editor removed items from the article. I asked if that should be done while the entire article was under consideration, they said it was "appropriate" and "warned" me not to return the material. Later, one editor "warned" me it would violate the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest code if I edited anything about Cherokees, since I am Cherokee. I was also specifically warned about editing things regarding a former Cherokee Principal Chief, because I knew him. I was only making factual changes which could be verified elsewhere. Being a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, it would be hard not to know any current or former Chief. I can understand if this was an opinion piece. But, being challenged for changing a date seems overly contentious. People with English ancestry certainly edit things regarding English people. People from Texas are not prohibited from editing things about Texas. I have no problem with most Wikipedia editors. It just strikes me as odd that some editors certainly seem to work together in certain areas. Phil Konstantin (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Phil Konstantin

I just want someone to tell me that I can't create, edit or comment on Cherokee related articles because my heritage and ancestry is Cherokee. There is nothing that I have created or added that can not be sourced or verified. Our greatest enemy today, being descendants of and ourselves as American Indians, is the ignorance of those who simply are incapable of understanding the historical bias. I believe most of it is not malicious, today, but there is an element that definitely has malicious intent.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Philkon Just so you know, there is an appeal process for any closed discussion here at Wikipedia. If what you are saying is true, and that apparent prejudice actually affected the outcome of the AfD, appealing the closure is an avenue you may be interested in. There is also a Manual of Style which must be adhered to as far as article content, and that stuff can be confusing and/or intimidating to a casual editor here, especially in a COI situation. So, that said, if you need additional guidance regarding an article in your sandbox or at draft, let me or another experienced editor review it for you first and offer suggestions. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GenQuest. Phil Phil Konstantin (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Have a question

I am not an archaeologist or even a geologist so I have a question. What would you say is the water table line 100 feet from a river or major stream in North Carolina or northern Georgia? How far would you have to dig before hitting some kind of water? --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason I asked this question was because there is an incorrect assumption, made by very intelligent people and one I have seen echoed on Wikipedia, that the Cherokee were not mound builders. While I don't know that they built multiple mounds within a village like the Mississippian and subsequent Muscogean/Creeks did, they were mound builders as explained by James Mooney in the journal, American Anthropologist Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1889), pp. 167-171. That is not to say every mound in the old Cherokee territory is of Cherokee origins,[not according to the article you cite in The Citizen Times, Parkwells] only to say the assumption that the Cherokee did not build mounds is incorrect. Of note, there is a mound on the Biltmore Estate grounds in Asheville, North Carolina. This mound is of Cherokee origins. It was a Town house or Council house location meant to be the geographical center of a town but also the center of politics and religious ceremonies. A mound was built and a pit dug in the center where the embers of the Sacred Fire were kept lit during each ceremony season. A chimney made from a hollowed out tree trunk was fashioned to carry the smoke from the fire pit out of the town house. At the time of ceremonies embers were brought to the surface to light the Sacred Fire used during the ceremonies. This was the way the ancient Cherokee built their towns and their town houses. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I posted this on Talk:Cherokee history to further illustrate the above:

The article states that the Cherokee did not build mounds but that isn't necessarily true. James Mooney discussed mound building in his journals on the Cherokee people and actually interviewed Cherokee who remember and explained in detail how a mound was built. I am not saying that the Cherokee built mounds like others did but to say they didn't build mounds is incorrect. There are plenty of examples of Cherokee mounds.

• Watauga Mound - [1]
• Nikwasi Mound - [2]
• Kituwah Mound - [3]
• Cowee Mound - [4]
• Biltmore Mound (called Untokiasdiyi by the Cherokee) - [5]
• (This is a great article if you want to see how these assertions were fabricated and pervaded the scientific/political sphere at the time and now) - [6]
• Cherokee Mounds in Western North Carolina - [7]
• James Mooney on Cherokee mound building - [8]

I can keep going but this should at least show that this notion that Cherokee did not build mounds or utilize them has been a historical fallacy that was initiated as a reason to justify American Indian removal from their territory. The same was employed against the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and others. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had anything substantive to add to this, but what I can add is encouragement that this should be corrected! It seems fairly cut and dry that any statement along the lines of "the Cherokee did not build mounds" is just false. James Hyett (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

James Hyett, to be honest, just from what I can tell, at some point they moved away from it, probably once their towns and villages started being destroyed by encroaching Europeans but may have stopped being used even before that. They had to be pretty mobile and so they built council houses where they could be taken apart and moved most likely. Definitely by the time of the Removal they ceased building council houses on mounds. Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't set out to prove this as fact but after reading several media articles on how the EBCI is actually buying these lands back, including the mound in Asheville (North Carolina), I started researching it deeper and connecting the dots. I agree that the results are nearly irrefutable. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If Parkwells is still with us on Wikipedia I would love to have their input as they were the one who added the statement to the article in May of this year. Perhaps they have sources to counter what I posted and we can compare them and come to a conclusion whether it should or shouldn't be included. Perhaps we can develop a more neutral POV within the article. There is no doubt that the Etowah mounds were Muskcogean. I addressed that on Talk:Etowah Indian Mounds. But the mounds located in the articles above belong to the Cherokee and were utilized by them. Archaeologist have found their fire pits in the center of these mounds and they are covered with Cherokee artifacts. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Response and other parts of thread moved to Talk:Cherokee historyParkwells (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Parkwells: This is a project talk page, not your user talk page. Please leave our comments here for others in this project to see it. Thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-sourced edits

Parkwells, I asked for your input in a discussion to build a consensus. Instead you have went on a personal crusade through articles on Cherokee topics and repeated your non-sourced statements without building a consensus. That flies in the face of the purpose of Wikipedia. Something is not true because you keep repeating it. You have repeated your claims on Cherokee history, Nikwasi (Cherokee town), Kituwa, Too-Cowee and even tried to discredit the evidence I provided about Biltmore by stating something was within the source but it is not stated as you claim. I am not stupid. I know the sources I provide and have read them extensively. You also completely ignored the words of the Cherokee in that article when presenting your beliefs. I want to believe there is good faith on your part so prove that when making edits. Maintain a neutral POV and source your edits please. As a side note, I also do not appreciate you moving content from here to another location. This provides confusion when other editors are looking for the full conversation. I chose to bring my question here because it affects the information provided over many articles on Wikipedia, not just one. The coversation should have remained here and I will move the pertinent information back here as I wrote it. If you want to leave your responses on the respective talk page and refer to them then so be it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I was confused about your accusations, because you say that original builders and the historic Cherokee users were the same, but not everyone agrees on the terminology. I was trying to clarify the issues, and going back to the sources on these articles to do that. Please note that the caption of Nikwasi Mound, in the Charlotte Observer cite you use, says that it was built "by ancestors of the Cherokee." If the interpretation is to be that ancestral peoples of the Middle Woodland and Mississippian periods are the same as historic Cherokee, for the purposes of saying that Nikwasi, Kituwa, and Biltmore were Cherokee mounds, then it would have been useful to say so. They all were used, maintained and considered sacred by the Cherokee, as I fully acknowledged in the Talk page on another WP article Cherokee history. As I noted in another place, I was reading a different Citizen Times on Biltmore than you cited, and got confused, leading to some of the discussion below.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is not consensus in sources that all those mounds are only Cherokee. I did quote sources, including, specifically, the source you used about the Biltmore mound.(This was my error; it was another Citizen Times article on this topic.) It said that the Cherokee claimed Pisgah Phase as ancestral, but also said that little to no historic Cherokee artifacts were found at Biltmore or in the county, as I quoted. I included it in the response so other editors could read it. You have provided no source for saying that "this notion that Cherokee did not build mounds or utilize them has been a historical fallacy that was initiated as a reason to justify American Indian removal from their territory." My edits were attempts to clarify the articles, not to assert a POV. I was working on each article because each mound has a different history, and I wanted to try to ascertain what that was, before returning to a general discussion. Parkwells (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

None of your claims were cited using in-line references. I checked each one and if there is any doubt anyone can review the history. You projected a false narrative in even quoting the article on the Biltmore Mound by stating that there were claims made that were not made within the written article. You dismissed everything the Cherokee and others have offered as evidence within the articles provided above. Every source above states that the Cherokee claim these mounds as sacred places and they claim ancestral connections with the original people who built them. Again, I simply want both sides presented. You are the one who only wants one side presented. In the Biltmore article, Barbara Duncan, education director for the Museum of the Cherokee Indian, stated "Archaeologists can only dig for the technology, not for language or culture." She said this directly in response to Cherokee officials asking why these towns and mounds are not being called Cherokee towns. It is Euro-Americans who categorized these cultures and phases. It is Euro-Americans who labeled them, and for the most part named them. It does not make them right. You assert that they are "most likely" or "believed" to be correct, passing off their studies as more facts than interpretations, and dismissing the traditional stories of the Cherokee which are just as valid. Scholars get things wrong too. I have offered sources above which bring everything into question. Saying something on a talk page does not make it a source for you to change wording in a particular article and your word alone does not constitute a consensus. That is why I offered sources and fostered discussion. I made no changes to any articles pushing one narrative over another. You plowed through everything with your own beliefs to push your own point of view without consensus. That is more concerning than anything I have said. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Parkwells I respectfully request that you please re-instate my comments that you removed from this page. I do not understand the deletion(s). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

GenQuest, I restored them for you. I assume it was just a mistake made in good faith. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was an error made in good faith.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Honouring Indigenous Writers (University of British Columbia Event)

Hello! For the past 2 years, the University of British Columbia has been running an annual Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. In the past, this has been an in-person event where people gather together in a room to edit and create Wikipedia articles for Indigenous authors. This year meeting in person is impossible, so we are busy planning out what we can do to have an online event focusing specifically on local Indigenous authors in BC, Canada. I was wondering whether or not there's any official way for our event to coincide or line up with any of the projects that this group is working on? Aquilessa (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal

Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that List of pre-Columbian inventions and innovations of indigenous Americans, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

New project: List of Mississippian sites in Cherokee homelands

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

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

References

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

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo

I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

a project edited only by the elders of each specific tribe

Hi, Let me start by saying that I have profound respect for Wikipedia. I also saw a few projects dedicated to improve the knowledge on native peoples.

However, I wonder if it would be possible and if you would agree there is a need (unless I missed a project that do so) for a project about each native tribe edited only by the elders of this nation? No need for much references but more like the way the tribe would like it to be told.

Although not a native myself, I have a few contacts and talking with them it seems they would agree that a Wikipedia project would be the best place.

Also, there should be the option for them to keep it private at least until they agree to make it public. Is that an option? Thanks

Yannick Neveux Founder and partner of Antinanco & TropicForest 501(c)3 Non-profits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannickneveux (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that I do have an American Indian heritage and have worked with multiple Nations in the US so I have a deep and profound respect for all things Indigenous and Native. That being said, it would be better for those tribal elders to purchase a website for themselves and hire someone to build it as they want it. Anyone is welcome to edit on any of these projects, including anonymously, and while they do have protected articles I haven't seen many if any protected articles on Indigenous People's of North America. It's possible they may have or can have their language added to and fill that wiki with articles in their native tongue but the request is not likely on the English version of Wikipedia, from what I can tell. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A number of tribes, including my own, have worked with historians to publish the history of their reservation/tribe as told by their elders to be taught in their tribal colleges. Wikipedia serves a purpose but it's more important for elders to use their time to teach the future generations of their own people without the need for outsiders to edit their work the way Wikipedia operates.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Tahquitz (disambiguation)

Members of this project might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Cornstalk / Hokoleskwa burial site

Please see this discussion and comment there:

• Talk:Cornstalk#Burial_marker

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War has an RFC

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners

- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Comments:

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

See User talk:Doug Weller#Use of Indian, Talk:List of Indian massacres#Requested move 8 December 2020 and edit summaries here.[9]. @Vajra Raja: are you going to try to do this for all articles? Your motivation seems to be your edit summary which says that "The term Indian overwhelming refers to Indian citizens and it's diaspora, instead of indigenous Americans" whichh doesn't seem a satisfactory reason. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That said, I do believe American Indian is still accepted and I respect the opinion of Tsistunagiska. San Francisco State University has an American Indian Studies program . The first article that came up when I googled it was in Oprah magazine [10] (not WP:RS) claims that it depends who you ask what term is best, as we see above. I have asked my Native American friends what they think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed move of Zuni

There is currently a discussion regarding a proposal to move the page Zuni which may be of interest to this WikiProject. The discussion is taking place HERE. Netherzone (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

@Nigetastic:, I see you have been adding this portal back to many of the pages that it was removed from. However, there have been no changes to the portal since April. There haven't been many improvements, and there are also formatting issues, at least on my end, with the page not wrapping/scaling properly. I don't recall where things left off with the portal discussions on overhaul, but if there was a consensus on beginning to add them back, I must have missed it. Thoughts, project members? Is this portal ready to be added to articles? Right now, I'm not really convinced it's in a condition to be added. Either way, is anyone interested in improving it? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

CorbieVreccanAh. Very sorry. I have to confess, I was not much aware of "portals" until recently when someone added a pair of them to an article I'd edited. I've been working on a series of 8-10 articles about Native Americans in Chicago. When I saw that there was a indigenous peoples portal, I thought it would be helpful to add it. My assumption was wrong, obviously. Nigetastic (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Code of Indian Offenses

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

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

Time to Revisit Junípero Serra?

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

Historic Cherokee settlements

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

John Buck (Onondaga politician)

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

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

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

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

Andrew Jackson#Indian removal policy

A request for constructive input regarding the wording used in this Featured Article at Talk:Andrew Jackson#Native Americans. 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)