This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I feel I am being bullied from editing at the Norse colonization of the Americas article. The telescope article isn't that much of a problem, but I am concerned over the Norse colonization of the Americas. I recently made a very ?good? addition to the article but it has been reverted. I don't understand. They will probably say it was because of a POV. I don't understand: the new additions were as "nice" as I could have put them. I am half-Native American, but I feel I shouldn't try and degrade people so I wanted to be fair. Is my newest edit there in good graces??? I actually respect the Germans and I think that they're strong. Guderian would often ride with his troops in the lead tank (at the expense of his staff's pleas). InternetHero (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters it might help for you to realize that the Norse were not Germans, albeit they were a Germanic people; not that that's why the reversion; I'd say you should just provide the book-reference where you got the new bits from; the polar winds thing seems a bit both speculative and/or obvious but at least it was cited; the bit about Thorvald, and the slaving, is something that needs a cite, that's why it was reverted; you also removed the POV tag, and the one below it, apparently, although maybe that was added during the reversion. Just provide the cites; the material was in-style, just not cited. And be advised, Scandinavians can be testy about being mistaken for tysker (their word for Germans - not sure in Icelandic either modern or viking-era what the word was, though).Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW just FYI, the Viking-era Swedes conquered and colonized Russia; Guderian and the Germans never quite managed to....get home alive (those that did).Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'll cite every disputed sentence. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure you should have removed the POV tags, for one thing, as that's a consensus thing; and watch using "Native Americans" in this article - the preferred usage is "indigenous people" as the term Native American is not used in areas ref'ing to what's now Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also phrases like "came back with a force" is not standard English usage and sounds foreign/awkward; "came back in armed force" perhaps, or "came back in force" - what you mean by "a force" is a "group of armed men/warriors" (women might be warriors too, though).Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. So where do we go from here? Are you going to just let them delete my contributions??? InternetHero (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Templates for Canadian Aboriginal & Cherokee syllabics
I've created a new template to advise users of the presence of Canadian Aboriginal syllabics on an article page. I realized we needed this after someone deleted all the syllabics in the article District of Keewatin, probably because all they could see were question marks. Invoke the template with {{Contains Canadian text}} and you can see it or edit it at Template:Contains Canadian text. — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You should try and make it similar to the Template:Contains Chinese text box, without the emphasis on the first line, though the box would have to be wider. Might need a new image as well, I tried a version with it on top but it looked awkward. I could make something in Inkscape if you want. I was able to edit it, btw. The Chinese one is admin-only edit protected. vıdıoman 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestions; thanks. I would appreciate a better image if you'd care to whip one up. (I think I'm using the characters in the Western Cree word for "language." A shorter word would actually serve better in this case.) — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also created a template for Cherokee syllabics, with what I hope is a more suitable image: Template:Contains Cherokee text, invoked by {{Contains Cherokee text}} — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking a square format, four symbols in each quadrant, not spelling anything, with a glyph from each group ('Regular syllabics', Blackfoot variation, Inuktitut variation) would be better to represent the syllabic template. The Cherokee template can probably keep the image it has, though transparency for the background would make it look better. vıdıoman 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I should have check here before I edited the image to a few, rather generic, common to most syllabic glyphs that look like it ought to say something and really doesn't. But that's not what want to say right now. My question is if who would like to take the initiative to update the Help:Multilingual support page as if the user clicks on the like provided in the template, they may not have the ability to get support on what options they have, where they could possibly go to get the fonts, etc. I will be very busy for another 5 weeks, so my wiki edits are going to be far below the usual counts. CJLippert (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I created a new image for the template. If you want me to change the symbols just post which ones you want. Four symbols, two per line. vıdıoman 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I like what you've put together, but let's swap the Blackfoot character and the Cree-Ojibwa character around (as this would put the Carrier character in NW, Inuktitut character in NE, Blackfoot character in SW and Cree-Ojibwa character in SE... sort of in the relative position of each other geographically). CJLippert (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I never even thought of placing them by geography. :P If the change doesn't show, try CTRL+F5 or the purge function. vıdıoman 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
Northwest Coast or NW Coast & Plateau/Pacific Northwest subproject?
I'm not sure who started the Anishinaabe subproject but hoping for some help from whomever in setting up a Northwest Coast - or Northwest Coast and Plateau - subproject, because the density and complexity of articles emerging in that culture-area and also in relation to overlapping "jurisdictional" WPs like BC, OR, WA etc.. I suppose I could just model it on the layout of the Anishinaabe subproject, but is there a procedure for this before I set out on my own? It's also to be debated if it's Northwest Coast only, or "Pacific Northwest"/Northwest Coast and Plateau, because of the interlinkage between Coast and Interior, particularly down Oregon way and because of the fuzzy "southern limit" of the Northwest Coast culture-area, which all depends on which part/end of the Coast you're looking at it from...also most indigenous-related categories or meta-categories in the region are jurisdiction-defined, i.e. Category:Native American tribes in Washington, Category:First Nations in British Columbia. Anyway advice/help/consensual direction please...a similar joint subproject of NorthAmNative and WP:California also seems called for, likewise WP:Alaska...but so also other regions/groupings like "Southwest"....Skookum1 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
From the Anishinaabe subproject (IPNA/Nish) perspective: this came about not because of geography or even trying to address the question of who are the Algonquian peoples, but rather to address the both the common topics all Anishinaabeg have among each other (language, history, culture) as well as with each of the component groups calling themselves Anishinaabe(Anicinâpê/Anishinàbe/Anihšinâpê/Nishnaabe/Neshnabé) and the individual bands of those components forming today's First Nations and Tribes, both Status/Recognized and non-Status/non-Recognized.
Now, for the Pacific coast, there is a millieu that makes that area extremely difficult as you have more than one Native ethnic groups living in close proximity to each other, with close interrelationships among each other, influencing what is going on a bit more inland. Both IPNA/Nish and the current reorganisation process for the Inuit groups (above) are around a specific native ethnic group, but that the Pacific coast don't quite allow for such convenient groupings.
I could see five areal subprojects: Northwest Coast, California, Plateau, Great Basin and Southwest... partially because Wikipedia have moved toward this direction mainly because of the available liturature out there address the topic this way. However, in the case of the Anishinaabeg, this would been a horrible choice as majority are Northeast Woodland, but significant amount are Plains and Subarctic. Another way may be by language groups: Salishan languages, Penutian languages, Chimakuan languages, Wakashan languages, Kutenai language, and Yuki-Wappo languages (this would ignore, though, the Athapaskans, Algic and a few others). If there were an Algonquian or Algic project, the scope would be so large that it may have been unmanageable... which was again why the IPNA/Nish covered just one segment of the Algonquians.
So, I guess what I'm recommending is to find a balance between the two. It may be that there ought to me more than one subproject covering the Pacific and having the areal grouping may be too large but having the language grouping for some be too specific as they are already so small. A way may be to focus for now on the one group and their closely-related groups that may have had trade dominance that influence the entire region and beyond... such as with the case of the Salishan peoples and the Plateau Penutian peoples who were at the terminus (Pacific-side) of both the northern trade route (via the Frasier and Columbia Rivers) along the Saskatchewan River (to Albany River, James Bay, the Great Lakes and the northern Atlantic coast) and the central trade route (via Columbia River) along the Missouri River (to Mississippi-Ohio Rivers, Great Lakes, and the Gulf and the southern Atlantic coast).
Wikipedia is an electronic media, so if this subproject approach doesn't work, that is just fine... it can be recategorized, reorganized, etc. That's my 2¢-worth. CJLippert (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Anishinaabe subgroup may have its own reasons for existence; there are differing reasons in the Pacific Northwest and I'm not sure at all that it's possible to draw some kind of continental standard. "Language" and "ethnicity" are not useful parameters in this region, partly because of the clan system (which bridges "ethnicities") but also because of the ongoing interlinkage of all the groups you've suggested should be treated separately; it is impossible to untie the Heiltsuk-Oweekeno-Haisla grouping from that of the Tsimshian or the Haida or the Tlingit, and the interweaving of regional history and politics both before and after colonization is too intricate to try and piecemeal the area out. Primarily I suggested this because of the recognized "culture area" of the Pacific Northwest, in which there are common binding cultural elements (clans, art style, the phonological grouping known as the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund) and members of peoples from the area would agree that it has a certain unity/commonality - one among those being User:OldManRivers (see this post at the bottom of my talkpage; there is such a thing as "Northwest Coast art" and "Northwest Coast culture"; it can't be easily broken down by the usual ethnographic/linguistic delineations; political/alliance history, the clan system, the related art styles and mythographies - and the notion that clan-intermarriage is the true "ethnic" (family) structure in the region and it bridges the different so-called "ethnicities" - which in their own time were mutually hostile in many cases (e.g. Skidegate vs Cumeshewa groups among the Haida); a typical Haida or Tsmhisan households would have brides and in-laws from all the other peoples in the region (or slaves/hostages....)...these are just some basic reasons, there are more - there are argument too, that "Dene" should be a grouping but there's not much "done" in that area yet (but needs to be...); some of the suggested subgroups are necessarily going to overlap the Ktunaxa re part of the Plateau complex, but they are also Plains by culture, for example. It gets dicer east of the Cascades/Coast Mtns with notable exceptions like th West'su-we'ten and Tahltan and as mentioned the crossover between Coast and Plateau peoples down around the Columbia; but in the "core" Northwest Coast culture region there's no doubt it's a recognizable "organism", culturally-speaking; and it's chock-full of interrelated articles - spanning different "ethnic" groups - that requires some regional coordination, i.e. for cohesive content; I'll come back with a list of "pan-ethnic regional articles" and I think you'll see what I mean...maybe OldManRivers will weigh in here, hope so....Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have wanted to do this but my time spent on Wikipedia diminished summer and I (can happily say) am a lot more busy with work and art and don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia but will continue to. I would recommend a "Pacific Northwest Coast sub-project. I know "Northwest Coast" means different things and can extend all the way to Oregon, which I personally wouldn't include in "Northwest Coast" culture, but whatever. The more the merrier, right? I think it would be nearly impossible to do something along geographical, regional, ethno-graphical, socio-political, or linguistical boarders. Although, I guess "Northwest" is geographical, it's just all encompassing and I think it could work. To me there are a few major "cultural" groups in BC + Washington. Coast Salish = South Coast. Nuu-cha-nulth, Kwakwaka'wakw, Heiltsuek, Oweekeno = Centrel Coast. Haida, Tsimshian, Gixstan, Nisga'a, T'lingit, Haisla = North Coast. It's almost along matrilianal/patrilineal cultural boarders (The more northern cultures are matrilineal). Anyways, I'm not suggesting this as anything. Merely pointing what I see as major groupings for "culture". These places are similar, and share similarities with their neighbors. All of the nations and their specific culture all bleeds into surrounding area's.
Just to note that those groupings are largely reflected in the relevan t categories and their interlink with the "georegion" categories, i.e. in Category:Central Coast of British Columbia you'll find the Heiltsuk; what's occurred to me before is osmetihng like a tribe-portal, like your Skwxwu7mesh template and the like; using hte talkpage for each main tribal page (Talk:Haida, Talk:Kwakwaka'wakw, Talk:Nuu-chah-nulth etc.); it's not as exact a science as would be nice - if the Nuu-chah-nulth are Central Coast they're farther south than some of the South Coast, and their relations the Makah are even further south; but yeah, there are some inner groupings within the proposed subproject and certain overlaps with Interior peoples; the subproject's meant not to be just a portal, but a workspace trying to "complete" the coverage of the region and also work up teh standards needed for its many peculiarities; the clan articles currently attached to Tsimshian etc are mirrored by content in various Haida, Tlingit, Gitxsan and Nisga'a errors and/or could/should be. The subproject's just meant to be a shared workspace, and of course also overlaps not just with NorthAmNative but inherently wi WP:AK, WP:BC, WP:WA, and WP:OR....Skookum1 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
BIRT(Be It Resolved That) we create the following sub-project titled "Pacific Northwest Coast and can include any culture that people think COULD be in that title. If there's a possibility it could be in there, let's just put it in there and get it over with. Instead of hashing it out why or why not, just include it and get back to work. IMHO, I think that could work. OldManRivers (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That's my premise, hence the proposed inclusions of Tahltan and the "mid-Columbia" peoples who are connected to the Chehalis, Chinook, Clatsop and Kalapuya; I think your compromise name is a good one and includes both points of reference - the so-called "white" perception of the Pacific Northwest, vs the cultural sphere that is the Northwest Coast in ethnography...; the range of articles in the Plateau is similar, if not quite the geocultural complexity of the Coast, but there's not even Category:Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau yet, or even Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau as an article, which perhaps should exist parallel to the Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast article you put together and the related linguistics group. I agree - "anything that could be included should be.... I hope CJLippert sees the point now, please say so if not; I was prepared to WP:Be Bold and "just do it", it's more the delineation and design I was concerned about, and whether or not there's a procedure for starting wikiprojects; for those familiar with the material, including many not active in NorthAmNative but other projects, it's fairly obvious there's a need to coordinate all the many government, culture, people, art, mythology, clan and anthro articles (and location articles, and other and other....); also in alignment with developing guidelines/standards within each of the related jurisdictional WPs (BC, AK, WA, OR etc). I'll get around to posting this on Template talk:Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest and the respective WProject talkpages.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"Just do it" is a good approach. But mind you, "inter-connected clans" is an inherent given in all North American cultures, so that reason should a factor, but rather something organic permeating through all scope of any articles under NorthAmNative. My only point of caution is to not bite off something too large right off the bat. Starting small and then grouping those smaller groupings into a larger group is perfectly fine. If the grouping don't make sense, that's fine as things can always be recategorized and regrouped into something more meaningful. I am well aware of the interconnectedness of peoples..., but for manageability, a distinct and cohesive unit had to be defined (whatever that distinct and cohesive unit is). Theorhetically, the Anishinaabe can (and in some articles do) cover the Swampy Cree, Mdewakanton Dakota-Sioux, Menomini, Sac and Fox, Abnaki, Wyandot, Miami-Illini, Ho-chunk and Assiniboine due to shared faith-system, trade networks, inherent regionality (from living in same/similar environments and living in close proximity), clans, etc., and potentially can also other Algonquian groups who describe themselves with the cognate of "Anishinaabe" (such as the Blackfoot and the Quiripi), but by defining what exactly the project would cover, it set bounds that are "manageable" (in quotes, because in reality, it is still not very manageable due to sheer volume of articles that need to be generated, beefed-up, reviewed, critiqued, etc. ... you know, the same problem with the rest of the IPNA). Reality is, anything that make sense to those who are dedicated to write the articles to enhance IPNA as a whole is an asset. CJLippert (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, well alrighty then....plan was to adapt the code-template used in the main and Aninishinaabe subprojects and just alter/adapt the contents; I'm hoping OldManRivers might know of a culturally-suitable graphic (one distinction in the region - artwork and especially crests are owned as property, also names - or rather one of the template, one for them usage/invite box, etc. I'll start sandboxing up a list of main/core articles and categories, plus related/overlapping ones (Category:Spanish history in the Pacific Northwest, History of the west coast of North America i.e. things that aren't directly native-defined but which inherently must include native content/perspective... about the clans, though, I think you'll find - I know that you'll find - that the clan system in the Northwest Coast is extremely elaborate and is part of the "traditional legal culture" and is/was very formalized; I know OldManRivers will concur, and one of his pages discusses some of this; see maybe Ganhada or Gispudwadwa - not sure I've spelled that second one right for starters.....these clans and associated titles/inheritances are part of the constitutional structure of the Gitxsan and Nisga'a and Tsimshian especially; as OldManRivers can also tell you there's a protocolic order to tribes (see Kwakwaka'wakw#The Tribes. Anyway rest assured there's a reason I mentioned the clan system the way I did; the formal slave/commoner/noble organization is also distinct along the Coast, even vs semi-similar systems inland....Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I will try and think of a good image for this. Once you start it, I'll spend some time organizing stuff and creating something of a database around articles related to the project scope. I don't know if a Dzunukwa would work since that's most of a "Kwakwaka'wakw" and surrounding area' type thing, or wait, do you mean a Sasquatch? I could also suggest something like a Killerwhale, Thunderbird, or something. Anyways, I'll think about and think of something! OldManRivers (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
[undent]Nah, Sasquatch is hardcore Chehalis and Sea Bird Island....the Dzonokwa I thought maybe was, yes, Kwakwaka'wakw specific (plus Oowekyala/Heiltsuk?), which is why I suggested the "welcome figure" (like those big guys in the entryway of the RBCM in Victoria)....what about those "watcher" figures with the si"yam hats, typically clustered in threes - they seem to occur right up into Tlingit and Tahltan territory as well as in the Gulf.....I was trying to think of something denoting cooperation, messaging/information etc....a simple graphic would be better obviously - an eyelet-wing-beak combination - I know you've read Bill Holm/Bill Reid's book, I mean the "eye elements" - the stylized ovoids; there's some items I've seen that are a eagle beak/eye and extended wing only...the other motif that comes to mind is an animal figure like your suggested killer-whale...is the sisiutl pan-regional? The Frog motif is tribe-specific again; bear and eagle and raven are more pan-regional no? Anyway just some thoughts...core and potential-core articles of course include Totem pole, Potlatch, Northwest Coast longhouse, Northwest Coast war canoe, Northwest Coast clan system. Northwest Coast art - what do you think of, ahem, "Intertribal warfare on the Pacific Northwest Coast...Marine fur trade really needs writing at some point, I'll try and make a start on it "soon"; btw someone's proposed History of the west coast of North America be put up for GA status, but aside from holes in its non-native historical coverage it really doesn't have much FN/NA content...had some other core/pan-regional articles in mind but can't think of them right now...just got up....Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could some sort of a salmon graphic or a photo of a very notable Chief be appropriate? CJLippert (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
A salmon graphic would certainly be appropriate, and decidedly pan-regional in flavour....trick is to choose which art style x-ref'd with which images are actually available. Picking a chief would be trickier; the most notable for whom images exist would be Maquinna (sketch, not photo), Chief Shakes or Sealth; I've bugged OldManRivers for a while now about some pics of Chief August Jack's ceremonial regalia which are in plates in a book called Early Vancouver but it's a certain art-style that doesn't resemble all that much the usual "Pacific Northwest style". Haida is perhaps the most iconic form of Northwest Coast art, though to an outside the distinctions between Kwakwaka'wakw art and Tsimshian art and Tlingit art etc are not all that recognizable; I'd say anyone one of them would do (for the salmon image) if the graphic "works"....Skookum1 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at what's in Wikimedia Commons but there wans't much usable in simple-symbol terms; there's this Nisga'a mask and as far as chiefly portraits go there's the one on Chief Shakes; unlike Ssalth and Kitsap it has the chief wearing regalia; is there a sketch of Maquinna wearing his conical cedar-hat on this article-page? I wish I knew the accreditation on taht sasquatch image on my userpage; it's either an old postcard or a picture I took of the side of a bus shelter in Seton; if I can find the photo I took of the bus shelter the image can be made public domain; what I'm thinking is that a portion of it, one of teh formal motifs, could be extracted and used.....I'll see if I can dig it up.....(he was a coastal artist, Sea Bird Island or Chehalis, even though Seton's in the Interior).Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Historic sites
A group of us working on sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places need the advice of contributors here. This discussion is about renaming and sub-dividing Category:Registered Historic Places of religious function. Items currently in this category include churches, synagogues, and religious schools, as well as Native American sacred sites and buriel grounds. The question is whether these sites that are significant to Indigenous history should come under the umbrella of "religion", or would another word such as "spirituality", or "sacred" would be more appropriate. If you could respond there, I would appreciate it. Thank you.--Appraiser (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I know that it doesn't quite match the main scope of this Wikiproject, but could somebody (or even better a couple of people) please take a look at Nasdijj, particularly the comments recently left on the talk page? Since I contributed quite a bit to that article, I'm one of the people being accused of bias: however, since the page is semi-protected, the person making the accusation is unable to edit the page herself. It seems unfair that I should be the one to decide which of her proposed edits should stand and which shouldn't: plus I'm not really able to deal with a flame war right now. Thanks, Vizjim (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have a set of POV articles, all surrounding the Pimicikamāk Nehiyāw Okimāwin. The four articles in particular are Cross Lake First Nation, Pimicikamak, Pimicikamak Cree Nation and Pimicikamak government. Some of these appear as though they can be merged together, while others seem distinct enough to exist on their own. To me, it appears that "Cross Lake FN" article is about a Status FN, "Pimicikamak Cree Nation" article is about a non-Status FN, and the "Pimicikamak" article is about the peoplehood formed from these two groups, while the fourth article "Pimicikamak government" can be merged into both the "Pimicikamak Cree Nation" article and the larger "Pimicikamak" article. However, all three ""Pimicikamak" articles come off as POV and requiring clean-up. When you look at these four articles, do they come off this way to you too? As there aren't any dedicated "Cree" article creators/editors, I would be willing to clean these four up, but I would like some guidance from all of you. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears a single user have generated all four: User:Fhusis. Looking around, he has created couple of duplicative articles for the Grand Council of Treaty 3 as well, which I have placed a "merge" notice on the existing article and the one article the user created, and on the draft article in the user's sandbox. CJLippert (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
They look well researched, but definitely have to be re-written to avoid POV. Pimicikamak uses the phrase "our land", which in un-encyclopedic, in the first paragraph. Another article mentions their "beautiful" flag. I would suggest contacting the author to see if they are willing to help in fixing the articles. They're off to a good start, they just need to be formatted better. vıdıoman 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've put a "welcome" notice on one of the users (as there were two users with very similar styles... possible sockpuppet?), and on both encouraged them to edit the well-researched but POV articles. I have encouraged both to participate in WP:IPNA and on one, also encouraged in participating through WP:IPNA/Nish. Let's see where this would go. Thanks for the suggestion. CJLippert (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you (and any other editors you might know who would have the appropriate knowledge) take a look (or in your case another look) at this rather bad article. Hardly any sources and those that are mentioned aren't properly referenced. I see you've made a few edits, but basically this is a one person article. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I got this request that I think makes more sense here. Could we all take a look at this? It seems the current article is too generalized (and there are some broad generalizations that can be made) but none of those generalizations are balanced with either specific examples or examples counter to the generalizations. The article seems to focus strictly on heterosexual-based sex gender-roles, but completely omits non-heterosexual and animacy-based gender-roles... and I think we already have an article addressing some of this... so some sort of tie is needed to link the two (?) articles together as they are just different parts of the same spectrum. CJLippert (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
To me, the entire article strikes me as synthesis. There are indeed papers on gender roles and genderization out there, but combining them all and making generalizations across an artificial fiction of some mythical indigenous commonality is an extension of reality and is a "new subject" more suitable to the way a university professor will design a course outline to reflect his own theories. There is simply too much complexity between the Isthmus of Panama and the Beaufort Sea to come up with anything but synthetic observations; it's just too broad a topic - too many separate topics - that in the course of tying them together DO constitute synthesis. Even within the Pacific Northwest Coast there are no commonalities; and largely gender-analysis is an imposed concept from outside native culture, which makes this even more synthesis/original research. I say Delete.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This stuff is worthy of being sections in the respective groups articles (provided it has citations), but as a standalone article, it is way too broad. This is like "Gender roles of Eurasia". Delete, or merge the subsections into the proper articles if any of them lack any of the cited points. vıdıoman 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
With at least 300 cultures in North and South America for which there is sufficient published material to address this topic over 500 years, and with 500 years of recorded history to cover, this topic is too broad and there would be too much synthesis for a good Wikipedia project. It is someone's PhD thesis topic. (Taivo (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the responses. Does anyone feel like taking this to AfD then? dougweller (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll support the AFD but I hate process and am clumsy with it, so while deleting it was kind of my idea, if someone else could handle the "paperwork" that would be great.Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I favour the merge of each individual section into the various groups' articles and then delete this article once the merges are complete. CJLippert (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
With sources I'd hope. Skookum1, if you don't use IE, you could start using Twinkle, it makes all sorts of things, including AfDs, automatic with a click or two of the mouse. dougweller (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
[undent]I'm on a G4 running MacOS10.5 adn my browser is Camino, a Firefox clone; sometimes I use Safari so I an see certain websites and use certain plugings though.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Milestone Announcements
All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250(t, c) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
