Talk:War bonnet

	Fashion Stub‑class Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Written using narrative or folklore tone, and should be cleaned up using modern language and syntax. Also should be wikified and linked to other articles.

When this article is revised and "wikified", it might be good to mention that the term war bonnet is not a translation of any Native American term, seems to have been carelessly coined, and is somewhat misleading. The so-called war bonnet is obviously not meant to be worn in combat, but on strictly ceremonial and formal occasions (as the article makes clear). Indeed, it might more appropriately be called a peace bonnet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.29.149 (talk) 03:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Cited sources talk about the war bonnet being worn for its protective ability as well as spiritual powers. Sources also say that feathers were found/collected from captured birds, in effect "farmed." This as well as the implications that anyone who found a nest could acquire feathers draws into doubt the last three paragraphs of the article. Anyone have any info on this? This also seems a bit overly broad and groups all traditions into one generalized culture. BothHandsOnTheWheel (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the name is a disgusting example of the proud tradition of white washing history, "bonnet" is a british word, and frankly this needs to be renamed, why not just call it what everyone already calls it; a headdress? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, some kind of SJW? It's not "White Washing", because that isn't an issue. We call it a War Bonnet because there is literally no reason to rename it to a headdress, because a headdresses are more complex and generally a "War Bonnet" falls into the category of a headdress. There is also more than just a War Bonnet when it comes to feather headdresses, refer to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A1F:4C01:F421:2DD7:A615:6F26 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The past few days there's been a lot of disruptive editing involving the removal of the cultural appropriation section. @I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO: how about instead of edit warring we talk about why exactly it contains unreliable sources and pov? And please try to not edit logged out. Sro23 (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's you were edit warring with were not mines. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] But I support their right to edit. I don't necessarily have a preference for the content of the article. I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about other native peoples using the bonnet when they were not traditional users? 2001:56A:F414:D300:AC7A:D359:BEF4:EEA1 (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Sro23 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to rename the article, you're welcome to do so. Even replica headdresses/war bonnets or non-Native American made headdresses/War bonnets are still "headdresses"/"war bonnets".

BUT, for the sake of argument, let's exclude those... even then, not ALL headdresses use eagle feathers as their base. Buffs (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the war bonnet article yes? Not headdresses and hats right? Did you read the link you just posted? Where is says,"All three types of Indian war bonnets were made from the tail feathers of the golden eagle, and each feather had to be earned by an act of bravery."? We aren't talking about roaches, gustoweys or anything else an indigenous person of North America sticks on their head. We are working on an article about war bonnets.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't just the bar bonnets article. It is also the article for headdresses. From the article's first sentence: "War bonnets (also called warbonnets or headdresses) are feathered headgear...". Furthermore,

Indian headdress redirects here. While you may be speaking exclusively about War Bonnets, we made the choice as Wikipedians nearly a decade ago to keep these articles together and, as such, it encompasses them all. If we are going to split it, I'm fine with that too. Perhaps an entire article on Native American headgear/<insert your word choice> would be preferable? Buffs (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

'Also called' is not the same as 'including other types of feathered headgear' because while all war bonnets are head gear, not all forms of Native American and First Nations feathered headgear are considered war bonnets. An article about the variety of Native American and First Nations headgear would be far more appropriate than something blatantly inaccurate. Not all forms retain the same connotation.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they did only that the article on headdresses explicitly redirects here as well and is included in the lead sentence as being inclusive of that term, regardless of the connotation you or others derive from the title of the article. You can't have it both ways. Either this article is inclusive of that term or it isn't. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, good add on the music festivals that have banned USE and not just sales. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be inclusive of things it is not. I don't think a redirect is beneficial because it insinuates one is the same as the other when that is not the case. While a war bonnet is also called a headdress, the same cannot be said for the word headdress. FWIW, if I type headdress into the search bar I am brought to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headgear not this war bonnet article. Indian headdress is what redirects and it is inaccurate. I am traveling and will have intermittent internet access so while I would like to start an article in Indian, or preferable Native American or First Nations headdress that will have to wait unless somebody else would like to get a jump start.Indigenous girl (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to NOT include that and instead start a separate page for more general headgear and clarify the difference, i.e. "A war bonnet is a Native American headgear... Sometimes incorrectly generalized as a "headdress", a war bonnet..."? Buffs (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice here matters. If we are going to say that "many" people of a group believe something, we should specify how much. "Many" implies a large number or a majority. As such, it's worth specifying how much. "Some" implies that there is a nonspecific percentage that could be a minority or a majority ("Some do and some don't"). I think it would be better to state whether it's a majority or minority if a percentage is available. If not, "some" seems to be the word we should choose here. Given that activists would undoubtedly be on board with the opinion (why else would they be activists?), and there is an indeterminate number for the rest, I'm going to include both within their respective contexts. Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that state that any significant portion of any Native communities are okay with non-tribe members wearing war bonnets? "Some" feels like

WP:WEASEL when it seems pretty clear (to me) from RS that the vast majority are not okay with that. There are many official declarations by tribes that explicitly spell out their objections, and they are absolutely RS to attribute the stance taken by the members of the associated tribes. "Many" can be weasel too, but in this case it seems warranted.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Which RS are you referencing "...from RS that the vast majority are not okay with that"? If it's "many", then that's fine. I don't see "some" as a

WP:Weasel word. It's simply a nonspecific number since I'm not seeing an authoritarian source on the strength of this opinion. Buffs (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

War bonnets are like military medals. Being Native, or a Native man, is only the bare baseline criteria; they are earned. Every feather is earned. Traditionally, they are only worn by the most highly-respected leaders of the Nation who have earned them. I say "traditionally" because there are people who are technically Native by blood, who are not part of the culture and not living in community, who will say they don't care; but they don't speak for the community. These are usually the "sources" relied upon when non-Natives want to try to go against the overwhelming community consensus on this. While there is a history of non-Native political leaders being given some kinds of headdresses as an honorary thing, as you can see in the sourcing, it is very controversial. However, the majority of the people in the Native community (band, tribe, Nation) who speak out against it when this happens are not always, or sometimes not at all, documented in RS sources. It's more likely to be something that is seen on social media and in person in the communities in question. So we wind up with situations where it's widely known that there is consensus around an issue - that an honorary headdress should not have been given to a non-Native politician - but this consensus is rarely well-documented in the mainstream media or academia. I've never seen any Native leaders who can speak for their communities be OK with "hipster headdresses" - the type worn for fashion. Natives don't wear them that way, and it's seen as really offensive for non-Natives to do that. -

☼ 19:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately things that are not covered in RS and are "more likely to be something that is seen on social media and in person in the communities in question" do not really have a place on Wikipedia, as assessing such situations is a clearly violates our policies on original research. Self published sources can, under some circumstances, be used to establish individual's opinions on things, but to assess what entire groups of people feel requires actual RS. I would assume, given how often these controversies are covered in reliable sources, that such a consensus should be covered in at least one of them. But we cannot just use what editors feel they know to be true, regardless of whether or not they are correct.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing I mean. Here is a RS that seems to back up "many". (https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/jul/30/why-the-fashion-headdress-must-be-stopped) "The backlash is a classic example of online activism. It has not been spearheaded by an official campaign, lobby group or celebrity spokesperson but a growing array of individual voices repeatedly making one simple demand: stop wearing headdresses as fashion accessories." This is not the only place I have seen statements like this. Are there any RS that indicate that any substantial portion of Natives support outsiders wearing them? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UA, I'm well aware of what constitutes OR, as well as the other policies here. This is the talk page, and we're just talking here :). My point is that, with minority and marginalized communities, mainstream media writers rarely do the required due diligence and followup to document community reactions in RS sources. So, yeah, we often have a serious problem of of knowing full well what the reality is, but having a lack of sourcing. I'm just explaining the problem as it stands. As you note above, there are sources that back up "many." I think they're sufficient. But we always get pushback on this, and wind up having to retread these same arguments. Please feel free to source and add. -

☼ 21:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This might be helpful http://www.fedbar.org/Hidden-Files/17th-Annual-DC-Indian-Law-Conference-Materials/Washington-Football-Team-Jim-Thorpe-and-Ownership-of-Indians_1.aspx. Throughout the entire piece it discusses war bonnets and how the majority of the community feels. Indigenous editors don't stick around Wikipedia very long because of regular dismissal and the fact that often we use in community terminology that the dominant culture doesn't understand and because of the way Wikipedia works there's no real way around that. Policy won't change because, quite honestly, not enough people are concerned with accurate indigenous representation. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"But we always get pushback on this". There's a reason for this. They do not meet WP criteria for inclusion. I also disagree with the reason people are pushing back is "not enough people are concerned with accurate indigenous representation". It has exactly ZERO to do with your race or ethnicity (or credentials or background, for that matter). Buffs (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your depiction of the source above is inaccurate. It mentions "war bonnet" ONCE and it's a draft. It also leaves out the mention that Chief Illiniwek's garb was designed in conjunction with the Sioux Nation. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, https://texaslawreview.org/owning_red/ p862, 866, 867 (where the specific question regarding headdresses is posed), 868, 914, 915, and 916. Actually Chief Illiniwek is a great example of the ridiculousness of non-Natives using headdresses. The first costume for Illiniwek was made by a boy scout. The final was made by an Oglala. Illiniwek Peoples did not historically dress in in Siouan clothing, theirs was and is distinct to themselves. Chief Illiniwek promotes stereotypes and cultural erasure.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm not looking to get in trouble here. Is it ok to interact with you? If not, I'll just delete my below remarks.

For Chief Illiniwek's outfit, you're correct that it was originally made by a boy scout, but the current one was in use was gifted by

Oglala Sioux

. You're indeed correct that this is not historically accurate, but given that it was GIVEN for the express purpose of its use, it hardly "promotes stereotypes and cultural erasure." Their culture has essentially been wiped out from everything short of the history books since the mid 1850s. To the contrary, it celebrates the culture of a different Nation since no existing Nation is available to emulate/celebrate in the state of the namesake of the Illini.

I also think this source should be added.

I don't contest that you, Keene, and others find it offensive. I just don't see justification for the "many" moniker used here (p. 916 uses "some"). Buffs (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If accurate indigenous representation then it would be an easy fix for a change in policy to be more inclusive and respectful of the manner in which information has been and is exchanged in Indian Country. I am fairly certain there would be considerable push-back if this was proposed. It would be considered ethnocentric to many people. Until social media, perceptions of authentic community specific data and access to the internet in indigenous and other marginalized communities expands, there are topics that will be lacking is honest factual information.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't include opinions like this unless they are proven to be more than

WP:FRINGE opinions. If they are not, then they should be included. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Corbie, you cannot ask me to stop interacting with you and then demand answers. C'mon man. Make up your mind.

Yes, bare urls are not the best references and I (or others) can clean them up.

• "
  Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...
  "
• "
  Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.

Given that we disagree, I think it's better to include third-party sources we agree upon rather than bloviate as to why one first-person source should/shouldn't be included. Buffs (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go with more incivility. You're the one who has ranted about refusing to collaborate. -

☼ 19:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What's uncivil? Where have I refused to collaborate? Buffs (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, I don't agree that the consensus was to "include it every time Corbie wants it". I disagree with your interpretation of the consensus, but even if I agreed with you, the consensus was that it was a reliable source, not that it must be included on every sentence. It's already in there 3 times. Buffs (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the rationale for why we should change this and, instead of answering,

you dove into remarks about me personally

, not the subject at hand. I'm willing to collaborate here. Yes, I'm adding more references because better references exist than the one you prefer. Are these not better? As quoted above:

• Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...
  "
• "
  Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.

If you feel I'm not correct here, let's discuss. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors can look at Buffs' talk page diffs for the warnings.[6][7][8] -

And one more for the record, re-incivility and reversals:[9] -

☼ 18:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

...which has nothing to do with your above assertion. Is every interaction with you just going to be you slamming me? YOU asked me a question, I responded, You said I was being incivil/refusing to collaborate, I disagreed/asked where, and then you drag up every interaction I've ever had with you that you didn't like.

Where have I been "incivil" here? Where have I refused to collaborate? Buffs (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point,

you aren't commenting on the edits, just the editor. Let's stay on point. Buffs (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just reading this article, and saw it listed a number of other non-indigenous notables who have been given headdresses. If there’s an editor here who could add this reference in, that’d be great. Thank you for your wiki work! (I am on an ipad - not easy to edit articles): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-chief-littlechilds-headdress-gift-to-pope-francis-carries-heavy/ DrMel (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]