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.
 

Chief White Eagle[edit]

This article is in error...Basil F. Heath was born in London and is of Brazilian and English heritage. The daughter of his sister, Valerie Peterson (mentioned on the entry), has his English birth certificate and family history. How Can this entry be corrected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_White_Eagle Laamka (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)laamka

@Laamka: You can click "edit" and change it yourself, but for the changes to stay, you will need a citation. Has anyone written about this? Is the birth certificate published online or in print media where others can see it and verify that it's a reliable source? - CorbieV 15:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read every source thoroughly yet, but so far it looks like we have a number of problems here. I don't see any Indigenous sources. I don't see any evidence that any tribe or nation claimed this individual. I only see human interest pieces in non-Native media that look to me to rely soley on his or his wife's claims. Even if he was Mohawk (which looks to me to be unlikely), we don't use titles or honorifics in page names on Wikipedia. I'm thinking there's a lot that needs to be fixed here. - CorbieV 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Articles like these are challenges, since there's barely any published, secondary sources about this guy—mainly blogs. The newspaper articles echo his purported bio. I tried to find a "facts disputed" template to post at the top of the article but couldn't find one (surely there is one). @Laamka:, if you are in touch with the sister, could you convince her to publish an article in a relevant newspaper? Yuchitown (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
Editing now. - CorbieV 16:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Saved. - CorbieV 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: Are primary documents acceptable as proof? My friend is the niece of Basil F. Heath and has him on a family tree on Ancestry.com and has his birth record, birth certificate and immigration ship log. If she makes the tree public, does that count as a reference? Laamka (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Laamka
While I personally think a well-sourced tree would be useful, I think there's a general reluctance on WP to use ancestry.com, mostly because many trees there aren't well-sourced, or contain inaccuracies. But that would be a start if it's sourced to legal documents, especially if we could link to those documents. She could also set up a personal site where she scans in the documents and states what they are. As a relative with access to documents, her official site would carry more weight than an unrelated person. Ideally, I agree with Yuchitown that giving an interview and a copy of the documents to a journalist could result in some very solid sourcing. That's what Iron Eyes Cody's siblings did after he died, and those sources are now used in his article. - CorbieV 21:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laamka: - I just heard back from a First Nations genealogist who has also found evidence, including source documents, that this guy was born in England. He was also married in the US, in either Indiana or Illinois, not on any reserve in Canada. This lines up with all the other ways in which his presentation did not reflect First Nations culture. I think we are looking at a whole pandora's box of fabrications here. It will have to be documented in a manner suitable for WP:RS citation, but as I'm checking the sourcing on the article now and most of it goes to dead links, this may wind up with him being most notable for pulling an Iron Eyes Cody/Grey Owl. - CorbieV 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Based on your earlier suggestions, my friend and I have begun to build a website with links to documents. We just started and have more to add, but here it is so far https://basilheath.wordpress.com/ Will this kind of documentation be suitable? He has tribal blood, but that is from South America, not North America. By the way, that marriage in Indiana was his second marriage and I believe that wife, Roberta Hannaway, may have been North American First Nation. 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Laamka (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, blogs are generally not deemed reliable sources, though with an extensive bibliography to hardcopy sources, maybe. (I wonder if "White Eagle" is the individual who gave rise to the insult "culture vulture"? ) Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
To make it more likely to be acceptable as a WP source, you can use the wordpress software for formatting the website code, but you'll want to buy a real domain name, and source everything on the site extensively to solid documentation. All the writing should be credited to the authors in question, with bios that indicate why they are authorities on this topic. Scan in copies of the source documents if you have them. Post photos if that's all you have. If you have hardcopies of the documents, get them notarized if possible. Make it as thorough and official as you can. - CorbieV 16:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits over at Navajo[edit]

Could use more eyes. Especially on these:[1] and the hugely-unsourced article, Diné Bahaneʼ, a link to which the user swapped in in place of the link to Navajo ethnobotany. - CorbieV 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The info added looks pretty accurate actually. Yuchitown (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Black drink again[edit]

There are some users who seem determined to rely on outdated anthro books and other misinformation... this is going to result in people being poisoned. This is a serious liability issue for WP. I've gone through this article and done cleanup before, but don't have time right now. @Indigenous girl: and other ethnobotany peeps, we could really use expert input here. I'll go flag the article for that, as well. I am very concerned at the inaccurate stuff that is being re-added. - CorbieV 21:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If it has medical health implications, perhaps a ping to Doc James and other folks at MEDRS is in order. They will shut down un-scienfic claims fast. That said, they are not always gentle about it, but if you want to ping an MD, Doc is, literally, your guy. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Project: Atikamekw knowledge, culture and language[edit]

Hello, you are welcome to have a look at the project Atikamekw knowledge, culture and language in Wikimedia projects. We are looking for endorsements and contributions! Best, Seeris (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system page[edit]

Hello, everyone. I invite you to visit the Canadian Indian residential school system's Talk page where I have started a discussion about developing the page to increase its current C-Class rating to Good article status. Suggestions for improvement, editing assistance and general feedback are all very much welcome. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone in the mood for massive cleanup?[edit]

Boldness called for at Native American Music Awards, Jim Boyd (musician), and I'd also look into connected articles. I've recently noticed these look to have been largely written by a spammy COI spa, and need to be overhauled possibly to the point of WP:TNT. See flags up top and edit history. Thanks. - CorbieV 22:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at the Nammy article reveals a pattern of similar editing by various redlinked users throughout its history. Probably too stale for a sockpuppet investigation on the last two with similar enough usernames, though. As for the Boyd article, this is pretty much the same as what happens all over the encyclopedia following someone's death, people come here to dump the results of today's or yesterday's headlines/trending topics.
While on this subject, I had a related concern. I've been thinking for quite some time about writing an article on Marc Brown and the Blues Crew (see photo and file description). I understand that a band which has existed primarily as a localized bar band may amount to a hard sell to the average Wikipedian. However, there were a recent slew of pornstar AFDs wherein articles were deleted or kept solely based upon whether or not they won some award which most folks have never heard of. In principle, wouldn't the same criteria apply to Nammy winners? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion. Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Music Awards. Yuchitown (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

AfD is a cespit of systemic bias. Save what you can and remember that quality and notability are not the same thing! Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Grey Owl[edit]

The article could use some more eyes. - CorbieV 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Major missing article: Native American nation[edit]

We seem to have no article on the legal concept of the Native American nation (e.g. Navajo Nation, etc), for the collective entities with whom the US has various (mostly pre-20th-century) treaties. We have a historical/general article at Native Americans in the United States, an ethno-cultural one at Tribe (Native American), and a geographical one at Indian reservation, but nothing legal/conceptual about this particular concept of nation. Such an article is a gaping hole in our coverage of topics like Nation, State (polity), Country, Microstate, and the differences between them. The Nation article does not mention the idea at all; this seems to be rather glaring WP:Systemic bias example. (PS: Such an article should have redirects from historical terms like American Indian nation, Amerindian nation, etc.; from plurals at "... nations"; and from capitalizations at "... Nation[s]".)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a major omission. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Even your example is mixed up mashup as Navajo Nation serves as both the nation article and the article for the major Navajo reservation ("Navajo reservation" redirects there but the small satellite reservations have separate articles). Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There is Tribe (Native American), Tribal sovereignty in the United States, Alaska Native corporation, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, List of federally recognized tribes, and List of federally recognized tribes by state. Since the lists of Native nations in Alaska and the Lower 48 are split, Native American nation should probably redirect to Tribe (Native American) or Tribal sovereignty. "Tribe" might mean one thing to anthropologists, but in US law, it refers to an Indigenous domestic dependent nation. (Note: Domestic dependent nations in the United States redirects to Tribal sovereignty). The concept is already covered; it's just a matter of redirecting the name to the best possible article. Yuchitown (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
There is not a specific legal designation for "Native American nation" in American law other than the "domestic dependent nations" status described at Tribal sovereignty in the United States. This would be a "made up title." What we do have is List of federally recognized tribes. I see no reason to create an article about a fuzzy term that would pretty much be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The problem of "what is a 'nation'"? plagues many groups worldwide (the best-known example probably being the Kurdistan question). If a crapload of redirects solves this particular problem, I have no problem doing so, but I would take issue with creating content fork articles about concepts that don't exist and serve only to further confuse people about the already very confusing legal world of tribal sovereignty. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Without further information, I presently agree with Montanabw. Although I have not spent much time reviewing all the RS on this subject, from the combination of my knowledge gathered visiting such a "Native American Nation", which locals definitely said was not free and sovereign from the U.S. rule (e.g. "domestic dependent nation" does match compatible), and my further research after the visit confirmed what locals said, and listening to their radio station (http://www.kiliradio.org/), and a brief review of our articles just now, I do not see any major gap in our articles. I have not heard this term "Native American Nation". SMcCandlish: If you have RS that describes it, please show us. I'm not even yet convinced a link is necessary.
I agree with Montanabw that the term "nation" also appears to be fuzzy--although so are all words. More complicated is the fact that often words or phrases do not translate between languages (there is no 1-to-1 correspondence as some naive linguists may have once thought [See [2]]). When the Europeans met the Native Americans, I think we can safely assume none of the tribes used the word "nation", but they likely used words or phrases that Europeans interpreted to mean something equivalent to "nation". If indeed such a translation took place, and the concept "nation" was clearly distinctly different than that of the European concept, and acknowledged by linguists to be distinctly different, then I would agree with SMcCandlish that we need to cover it. But I would like to see the RS that identifies a unique acknowledged difference of the word by linguists. Have we consulted the OED? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead a created a redirect (if folks vote to change the redirect, that's fine). Yes, absolutely tribes had words that mean nation, notably oyate in Lakota and Dakota. Contemporary perceptions of the nation has been historically influenced by Native tribes. But yes, Native American nation is not a legal term nor is it in common parlance, so a redirect should suffice. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
Thanks, for the word. With a quick Google, I found this [3]. Good reading! --David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Eagle-bone whistle[edit]

If you see the issue, please keep an eye on this. If you don't, I can't discuss it here. I have asked the admin who is working on it to contact me. I hope he does. :( - CorbieV 02:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC

@Hyacinth: has not emailed me, so I have pinged them on the article talk page and addressed the issue there. - CorbieV 16:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia deal with N. America being traditional oral and Europe being written? Hyacinth (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:42. If it is not accurately written down, then we cannot use it. A lot of oral histories taken down by non-native people have cultural bias in their understanding and translations. Some sources are better than others, best to be very careful with them. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated the image previously used for deletion and added some notes to the article and talk page requesting that music related categories and requests not be added. Hyacinth (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconding Montana here. We can't use non-WP:RS sources. We have to rely on cultural experts whether these are reliable. We have folks in this Wikiproject who have long edited in this field, and who are part of living Native American cultures. The request to not use these unreliable sources is coming from experts in the field. - CorbieV 00:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
With the amount of detail and sources removed, which sources and claims are still in question? Hyacinth (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) [modified: 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)]
Let's take that discussion back to the talk page of the article. This is a more general discussion. As a non-Native person, I know that some historians have very carefully researched and have taken down accurate information that has been cross-checked by tribal experts. Other "experts" are often self-appointed and their research is far more sketchy. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia I could claim to be a toaster or an Native American Studies professor. I could also claim that a source is completely unreliable or infinite perfection. The conflict between written and oral cultures, and the conflict between European anthropology viewpoints and Indian NAS viewpoints is a common issue in NAS, and if Wikipedia does not have an attempt to deal with this issue it should.
Though not a toaster, the first thing that comes to my mind is a list of sources, claimed to be unreliable in reliable (and/or multiple) sources, that users could point to so as to justify the removal of unreliable content. Second, to my mind, a policy (or at least essay) that users could point to suggesting the use of references from an Indian and/or academic viewpoint. Hyacinth (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
When tribes would like to include tribal oral history I would suggest publishing it first on a tribal website or in a tribal journal. Since official tribal sites and journals are RS for the viewponts of the tribes on their own culture, such sites can be cited as sources in our articles. Otherwise I would suggest find anthropological sources that represent oral tradition - such sources were collected among most tribes in the early 20th century - although they may of course not be definitive and sometimes quite problematic anthropological publications often do include information about how native people spoke and thought about their own cultures in that period.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be great then if Wikipedia had an explanation of how the use of tribal sources doesn't conflict with WP:42#Independent sources (WP:INDY). Hyacinth (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That is not an actual policy or guideline, so there is no conflict. WP:RS is clear that even personal blogs are admissible. Gvernmental or organizational sources are reliable sources for the official view points of governments and organisations. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't mention the term "oral", as in oral history or culture (or even "literate" as in "pre-literate"), and there is no Wikipedia:Oral history. Hyacinth (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Neither does WP:OR. Hyacinth (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a list of reliable references should be created, with citations indicating their reliability. Hyacinth (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a policy or essay encouraging the recognition of tribe's individuality over the depiction of a single continent with a single culture. Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Established policies already cover most of the issues. Sources must be secondary, published sources, end of story—otherwise the material does belong in an encyclopedia. Not all published sources are factually correct, so more recent, peer-reviewed scholarly sources are preferred, as are sources coming from communities (Native people publishing about Native topics). If Native people are *not* publishing about a subject, that's a clue that the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. Oral culture is meant to be shared directly between two or more living people. As ·maunus pointed out, if a tribe wants to share information, the members are absolutely capable of publishing it in their tribal newspapers or on their website. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
Sources have to be written to be citable and verifiable. So Oral sources are simply not permissible - Oral history can be cited only in its written form.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconding both Yuchitown and Maunus here. Existing policies already cover these issues. On WP, it's also understood, I think, that content-creators are responsible for being knowledgeable in the fields in which they wish to write, and able to evaluate the sources used. Anyone who is an expert in any field has to deal with this when editors discover a group of articles for the first time and want to work on them without being sufficiently familiar with the sources or subject matter. It's not just a Native issue, by any means. Over time, we learn who does and doesn't know the field, who is and isn't experienced at WP:IRS for that field.
With Native issues, however, it can be particularly frustrating due to there being so much misinformation out there about living Native cultures, Natives in academia, cultural boundaries, and the fact that we have people from the living cultures participating here on Wikipedia, right now, reading this and editing, so we do not need, for instance, outdated and inaccurate depictions by anthros. I know that most of the non-Natives who want to help on these articles do mean well, but at the same time some really misinformed and insulting things keep getting said or implied by people new to this field. I'm not going to focus on that, but we do see it. I think it's a credit to the commitment to civility and patience of our project members here that we've just focused on improving articles despite it all. Peace. - CorbieV 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you, Yuchitown, or Maunus please point me to these policies which cover these issues? Hyacinth (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I know, these fucking stupid obviously white people who are obviously without advanced degrees in Indian viewpoint based Native American Studies. Peace. Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources seems like it would cover everything here. As Native people, we are perfectly capable of getting important material published in books, journals, and newspapers. If it isn't published, it doesn't belong here. Yuchitown (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
WP:V covers the basics of verifiability, which is the problem with oral sources - nobody else can verify whether they are being used correctly unless oral testimonies they are first written down for others to consult. Secondly WP:OR covers the fact that if we go out and collect oral testimonies ourselves and write it down, that is original research - and cannot be cited untill it is published by some publisher that thereby vouches for the work's quality and reliabilty.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I don't see that as a problem. If we want to do original research, we do it outside the scope of Wikipedia. The oral history of every tribe doesn't necessarily belong all over the Internet. Since indigenous intellectual property rights are serious issues, the academic community can grapple with that—or tribes can decide what they want to disclose. Then Wikipedians are free share what has been vetted. Yuchitown (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
Yes, as I linked to in my response above, and as multiple editors have answered repeatedly, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, aka WP:IRS covers this, same as it does for Wikipedians of any culture, race, topic or ethnicity. :) - CorbieV 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Could anyone quote the race blind policies which so clearly already cover this issue or these issues? Hyacinth (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you personally believe that all the core, basic, WP policies and principles need to be amended with a sentence that says, "This policy applies no matter the race, creed or color of the editor, editors, or topic being edited," or some other idea that I am missing here, you will need to take that up with the Wikipedia community as a whole, not with the members of an already-overworked minority wikiproject such as ourselves. - CorbieV 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The "issue" with Eagle-bone whistle hasn't been named. No specific problems with the article have been discussed here: no specific claims, quotations, or references have been questioned, and neither has the existence of the article. I assume that means that I've either distracted you enough with questions that you forgot about the article, there was no issue in the first place, or that the article has improved during this discussion. Hyacinth (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyacinth, the issues specific to that article are to be discussed there, not here. This is a general discussion. And two of us have been working on the article, or at least removing unsuitable material. Montanabw(talk) 06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been explained to me, Wikipedia relies on written citations and policies. For instance, WP:PSTS. To insist that there is an issue with an article that can't be written down is thus unreliable, and should be avoided. To insist that article material should be removed, but be unable to write down a reason, is thus unreliable and should be avoided. To insist that there are large issues that constantly arise on Wikipedia regarding sacredness and holiness (and confidentiality), but that no attempt be made to deal with these issues seems contradictory. I apologize for causing you all so much work by my additions of cited material to eagle-bone whistle and my attempts to follow your advice. Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Where I sometimes see problems arising is when written sources are inadequate relative to oral sources and misrepresent the reality (for example when evens are descibed in 19th century sources written by racist colonialists and noone else has written about it), or when there is a reason to believe that the proprietors of some indigenous knowledge would rather not have that represented on wikipedia. In such cases it is hard to exclude the material, unless one can convince other editors that the sources are unreliable and should be excluded. This is often hard if there isnt another source contradicting the first one. This is sometimes a problem I think, but not one that can be systematically solved under current policies. If you have ideas for improving policies in that regard it is possible to make suggestions for changes at the discussion pages of those policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, we've won that battle of the 19th-century-crap-source here any number of times. In this case, there is also an overwhelming consensus to show respect on this issue by keeping the article general in tone, and only a single, tendentious editor is not dropping the stick. Montanabw(talk) 05:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red will be hosting a month-long virtual editathon on indigenous women in August to coincide with Indigenous People's Day. We welcome participation from anyone who wants to improve or help create articles. If anyone is interested in adding curated names to the potential list of new articles, the link is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Indigenous Women. Just add a red link and sources which confirm notability. An invitation to sign up for the event will be forthcoming. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons[edit]

Inuit women 1907 crop.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Indigenous women editathon & Polar women editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Talk:John Two-Hawks#Recent edits[edit]

Thoughts? Tangentially related to how non-Native musicians who play Native-style instruments or in Native genres get categorized and written about on WP. - CorbieV 22:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

More of the usual... sigh. Plastic shamans and culture vultures. I commented there. Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Paula Underwood[edit]

Somehow this non-Native's changing backstory went unnoticed as she morphed from the white descendant of settler colonists in the Midwest to an Oneida clan mother, even being included on some Native authors lists. She wrote lots of fiction about her fictional "Indian Chief" ancestor, when her actual ancestors were Indian-killers. Looks like we might have another Education of Little Tree situation. Though, granted, without the drama of the KKK and the segregationist speechwriting, so at least there's that. *smh* - CorbieV 23:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pee Dee people[edit]

Could anyone look over Pee Dee people? A user who apparently belongs to the Beaver Creek Indian Tribe is deleting cited information. Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

At this second, almost all the material except one paragraph is cited by secondary published sourced, but more eyes are always welcome, since this will assuredly change. Yuchitown (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
Most tenacious editor ever. On a daily basis this editor continues to delete cited information (for instance, the fact that Pedees owned African-American slaves). The thing is, there is barely any recorded, historical information about Pedees from which to choose. If anyone else could look at this article occasionally, that would be fantastic. Although this editor keeps deleting material, Wikipedia is supposed to be be uncensored. Yuchitown (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
I initially reverted the edit-warrior, but have self-reverted in case administrative action is called for. I don't have time to get up to speed on the entire situation right now, but am certainly open to suggestions. They look to me to be a SPA here to advance the agenda of heritage groups that want to misrepresent themselves as recognized tribes. Nothing new; probably one of the IPs or rednames we've dealt with before has made another account. - CorbieV 19:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Final warning given to the edit-warring SPA. Will block if behaviour resumes. Semi-ed Pee Dee and Beaver Creek (Extended Confirmed req.). Someone else should do Extended Confirmed on Echota if that becomes a problem (best if it's someone other than me as I've edited it in the past and reverted the SPA once under this current account of theirs; I assume I've probably reverted them extensively in the past, as well). - CorbieV 20:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sa la k'adita. Thanks, it didn't seem correct that whomever is the most persistent reverter prevails, which it probably why I stuck with it. Yuchitown (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Could use more eyes on Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. Looks like our edit-warrior has no interest in going for consensus. If it was on an article I hadn't edited I'd block them now per WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. But will need another admin on this one. - CorbieV 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiCon North America[edit]

Hi gang, I'm pinging everyone here because October 11, 2016 is Indigenous Peoples' Day and occurs during WikiCon North America, set to be held in San Diego. We are looking at using some of Monday to do programming specific to Indigenous people. I'm on the committee, and thought I'd post here for folks to provide any guidelines or advice to the organizers, and particularly if they have any suggestions for presenters who are relatively close to San Diego or have any general do's or don'ts. Montanabw(talk) 03:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)