Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 3

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.

Wikimedia Commons has a large repository of media (largely photos) related to this project, most of which you can find at commons:Category:Native Americans. I have spent the last few days to clean up and categorize the images and have created numerous new sub-categories for peoples/tribes with more than two or so images.

Since it is unnecessary to clutter articles with too many illustrations, I suggest we create articles in Commons to act as 'appendices' for Wikipedia articles. --Himasaram 04:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past week, we have had a flurry of activity in surveying what all is out there that are somehow associated with the

I picked some items from the archives to get rid of the red links. Of course, feel free to replace them when you get the time.

talk 14:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new way to organize this project. Instead of refering to us as Native Canadians and/or Native Americans (or other native european colonial citizens) I think it would be better to organize all relavent articles directed to the specific Native Nation in question. A good example would be Midewi'win Society coming under the Anishinaabek Nation -> Spiritual beliefs. Also i think it would be extremely beneficial to include our histories (oral, written) rather then taking the histories (written) of non-native cultures POV about us. This would go a long way to dispelling the myths, lies and misrepresentations about us. User:RedMan11(<-- sig added by Leo1410 10/5/06)

We've made a start with

User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe

. Please take a look and edit what doesn't look right. I'd agree that right now a lot of these articles are lacking a Native voice.

(Leo1410 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

One problem is the current categorisation of indigenous peoples by Country & State/Province. Not only is it politically NPOV, it's also hard to justify since so many indigenous lands, like those of Kanienkehaka/Mohawk, exist across national and state/provincial lines.

Luigizanasi has suggested the following system. Regional classification is far from perfect, but it's likely to be more accurate than the straight lines of provinces & states, and it avoids the NPOV issues raised by RedMan11.

Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

• Category:Indigenous peoples of North America (maybe?)
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Arctic
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Subarctic
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of California
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Eastern Woodlands
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Great Basin
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Plateau
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Northwest Coast
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Plains
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Southeast
  • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Southwest

Then the Category:Gwich'in & Category:Dene categories would belong to Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Subarctic rather than the provincial/territorial categories. Of course, we could narrow these categories further if they get too full.

On the other hand, it would also make sense that people should be able to find out what indigenous nations do exist within the borders of their individual province or state. I know it's rather important here in British Columbia where treaties have not been signed, and are being negotiated partly with the provincial government.

What do you think? - TheMightyQuill 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This would be extremely difficult. Consider all the tribes pushed into Oklahoma -are they Woodlands tribes or Plains? Are the Blackfeet Woodlands were they originated or Plains the culture they had after European culture. You are already proposing to classify the Navaho of the desert Southwest as Subarctic! (they are Dene, too.) Rmhermen 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the current system because it can be applied to both where the tribe lived historically and where they live today. Where would you put the

Eastern Woodlands? Maybe now and originally, but they lived in North Carolina for a long time too, and therefore the Southeast. If we incorporate the new system we should probably keep the old one too. The Navajo, Tuscagora, and other of the more complicated examples could appear in several different categories. I'm betting a lot of the people would resent being categorized by the location their ancestors lived, rather than where their living nation lives now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why couldn't we group the peoples by how they group themselves? As for the

Blackfoot, etc. However, for this type of grouping, you need to know how all the peoples group themselves and then fit the pieces together like a puzzle. As for the "Dene", the answer is "yes". One are the northern Athapaskan group of peoples and the other are southern group of Athapaskan peoples. (And yes, Athapaska would be an indicator of my bias towards the Algonquian name for that group of peoples.) CJLippert 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the state and province categories since many sources, laws, orginizations, councils, etc. are based on states and provinces. Plus, proximity leads to knowledge. For instance, most of my contibutions have been on Anishinaabe articles, but for me in Wisconsin I know more about say the Menominee than I do about the Anishinaabe groups in Quebec or Saskatchewan. However, we should also add more meaningful categories. I'm actually inclined to think of them more as daughter wikiprojects. I see problems with the woodland, plains, etc. categorization for the reasons described above. I also don't like linguistic categories for topics other than languages--Who doesn't cringe when they see a reference to "Algonquian Culture." Instead we should look for meaningful relationships between tribes based on perceived kinship and shared history. For example, I wouldn't see a problem with seeing the Assiniboine (Sioux) put into a project with the Cree (Algonquian) and Chippewayan (Dene). I can think of four potential groupings off the top of my head:

• Iroquois
• Anishinaabe
• Sioux
• Five Civilized Tribes

Of course it would be somewhat arbitrary, and some tribes would still fit into multiple groups, but I think it would break up the massive scope of this project and get editors working on things they know. For instance,

• My interest is primarily in English-language literature by Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I would be happy to research and contribute a literature section if anyone were to set up an equivalent of Leo1410's Anishinaabe pages - just drop me a line! Vizjim 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, admin dudes! Time to archive? Vizjim 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, those of us working on

It has been discussed but no conclusion reached. See all sorts of variation in a big list like

Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Rmhermen 02:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for replying.

Katr67 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess (people) would probably be the most universally accepted, though of course, only when disambiguation is needed. Generally, I think People from XXX categories are generally designed for individuals, not "peoples" but how to organise people by state is a problem being discussed above. Removing it from history of Oregon was definitely a good idea. -- TheMightyQuill 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll take

Katr67 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to bounce this idea off all of you. What do you think about two pages listing treaties made with the Indigeonous peoples of the North America, one with the Royce Reference Numbers and USC Numbers for the US and another with Crown-treaty Registry Numbers for Canada, as well as the treaty year for both pages? The reason I ask is that in the larger world, often the treaties are not refered by their name but rather by one of these four methods mentioned. I don't know if we want bunch of redirects as well (and disabmiguations, in the case where only the year is mentioned), but having multilple ways of accessing the treaty information may prove handy. Thoughts? Comments? CJLippert 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen (obviously incomplete)

Katr67 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that incomplete list, and no on others accounts. There is a table originally published by the Bureau of American Ethnology that attemps to qualify all the Indian treaties the US has been a signatory. The person who made these treaty listings was named Charles Royce and all US treaties involving land agreements were assigned a "Royce Number". For example, the Royce Reference Number 242 or simply Royce No. 242 corresponds to the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters (7 Stat. 536). As for the Canadian Numbered Treaties, they are systematical Canadian listing... new country, clean slate, start numbering in an orderly fashion. However, all Canadian, and all British treaties before them, also have been categorized and listed. For example, of the Numbered Treaties, the 1874 Treaty 4 corresponds to Crown-treaty Registry Number 135. CJLippert 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea (though I ain't volunteering for the very hard work it'll involve!) Do word and format it in such as way as to potentially be able to incorporate treaties involving South American countries, Hawaii, Russian Alaska, etc. Vizjim 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. CJLippert 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a table in List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S._Native_American_treaties. I've done only the ones for 1776-1799. Please take a look. Does it work? Different heading categories needed? Feedback appreciated. CJLippert 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks for all your hard work. Maybe add a blurb at the top or link to an article about Royce numbers, since not everyone will know what those are. Let me know how you want to handle the redirects when the time comes.

Sounds good. I'm still playing around with the column titles. Similarly, but on the

Indian Reserves also have numbers but they're not 4-digits like those in the US, which are currently restricted to numbers ending in either 0 or 5. Unfortunately, I'm quite ignorant if such a documentation is even possible with Mexico. CJLippert 22:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now here are some problems in integrating the info already there and the next section of the table. The next section (1800-1829) has remarks, while the current layout for the table don't. So, keep the remarks or remove the remarks? Next, in the case of redirects. Currently, there is a redirect for Treaty with the Ottawa, etc. that goes to Treaty of St. Louis. However, I see this would be a problem since there are several different treaties of St. Louis where only the 1816 treaty would be that, while there are several treaties with the Ottawa, etc. where only the 1816 one should go to Treaty of St. Louis. Should we have a diambiguation page for Treaty with the Ottawa, etc. and alike instead of a redirect? CJLippert 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At

I'm looking into it now, though I don't know much about the language. After a cursory Internet search, it seems to me that your information is correct.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

May I note that being "correct" is not a goal.

WP:V is our only alternative, as few of us are "experts". Respectfully --meatclerk 07:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Certain historian are important to our work on Ohlone, but they are important to others. Any comments or addition to the articles below welcome. --meatclerk 09:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sherburne F. Cook

• Populations of North American Natives

Alexander Smith Taylor

• collector, historian and "first bibliographer of California"

Hello! This is my first contribution to the Project (but I worked on the fr:Abénaquis page before tackling its English counterpart). I cleaned it up, rearranged the sections so they make more sense, and deleted repeated, garbled mentions of the current Abenaki reservations in Quebec. I found the page the original writer kept referring to and corrected the footnotes. The article, however, still needs a lot of work, so if any of you can add references or any information at all, it would be lovely. Marialadouce 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been working the last few days on comparing

Native American pottery article. Rmhermen 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just proposed renaming two native american categories, and wanted to list the proposals here in order to get any feedback, positive or negative, from those with knowledge of the subject. Links to the proposals are here and here. - TexasAndroid 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there is an existing

Is one for the Seneca people, the other for the Seneca government? Just curious. If that's the case "Seneca Nation" should probably be retitled in the usual "Seneca (tribe)" or "Seneca people" format used for other groups; i.e. as per the threefold or fourfold delineation between ethno articles, political-org articles, and language articles and potentially separate community/town/rez/agency articles. Otherwise, yeah, I'd venture it's a duplicate.Skookum1 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like someone is trying to differentiate between the people and the tribal entity? I've done some work on this with the

Katr67 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The new article was started by

Donald Albury 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, I am not mad at you just frustrated over

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians. Should we have both groups under the Seneca Nation page or should we have one article for the historic Seneca Nation that will cover it from the beginning to approximately 1848 and then an article for each of the current groups of the Senecas? --Dtwarren 03:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NorthAmNative includes this image: The full-size image I get following the link looks fine, but the 90px version here and in the template itself looks like two rabbits with thought bubbles for some reason. wtf? -- BCoates 08:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's incredibly weird. Here is the offending image, but who knows why it's there. I fixed the template in the meantime by changing the size to 91px. -- TheMightyQuill 09:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on commons.wikipedia.org fixed. -- TheMightyQuill 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an on going debate at

There are currently nearly 1000 article in Category:Indigenous peoples of North America stubs. Clearly, some of them are no longer stubs, and should have the tag removed, but even still, shouldn't they be divided to make management easier? Someone proposed a NA-native-bio stub, which was rejected here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive24#.7B.7BNativeAmerican-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Native_American_biography_stubs

I think this problem is representative of our bigger questions of organization. Do we divide by region, or modern nation state? Do we, as criticized during the proposal debate above, put all indigenous north american people in a bio stub, based on ethnicity, but regardless of any other connection they have? It's a tough question. I would say the biography stub idea is actually a good one, but more people need to get out and support it next if we are going to get it done. Perhaps we should discuss it here first. -- TheMightyQuill 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With 1,000 entries in the stub category, the sub-category for biography stubs is a no-brainer. Anyone who wants to create and populate {{

Kevin 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've kind of run into this in the BC division of the project, which overlaps heavily with

na-lang-stub}}. Within the BC project, we've created separate categories for "ethnicities" or ethnocultral/linguistic groupings, though not all are classifiable easily, as subcats of Category:First Nations in British Columbia

:

• Category:Kwakwaka'wakw
• Category:Tsimshian (also applicable to Alaska]]
• Category:Nuu-chah-nulth,
• Category:Stó:lō,
• Category:Sťáťimc
• Category:Dakelh
• Okanagan people
  ; also applicable to Washington state)
• Category:Nlaka'pamux (also applicable to Washington state)
• Category:Secwepemc
• Category:Haida
• Category:Wet'suwet'en
• Category:Kaska Dena
• Category:Tlingit (also applicable to Alaska)
• Category:Nisga'a (also applicable to Alaska)

are all I can think of right now, although certain others are definitely needed once more articles are written in some areas; and defining a category-name for different groupings of Coast Salish peoples is going to prove tricky....; some peoples and articles on them won't fit in any of these, e.g. Haisla, Heiltsuk, Wuikinuxv and more; while their languages will fit in Category:Wakashan languages there is no equivalent non-language category...nor can there be, I think. Point is other subcategories of Category First Nations in British Columbia include:

• Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia
• Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia

which aren't as redundant as they might sound at first...there's also Category:First Nations leaders, but that's so-far Canada-wide, and Category:First Nations people, likewise so far Canada-wide (also Category:Métis people which is a subcat of Category:Métis, again both Canada-wide and I'd imagine with some stateside articles, too...). Trying to stay on topic here, the point of the category digression is that the stub hierarchy isn't quite the same thing, as I found out recently while "playing out of school" and trying to create a new series of BC-related stubs, without recourse to or knowledge of the proper stub hierarchies (see SFD discussion on my talkpage. The issue of a BC-bio-stub came up, and I suppose a BC-FNbio-stub might be a splinter off that, but for now there's only {{tl:Canada-bio-stub}}; a parallel FN (that's a standard abbrev for "First Nations" up here, in case it's not obvious) stub hierarchy seems necessary on the one hand, but complicated to establish as I found out already about my ideas about what kinds of stubs BC is going to need; I can try and make sure, at least, that start-class and higher articles in BC categories have their stubs removed, and I'll post a message about this discussion on WPBC's talkpage; I suggest a similar one be posted on WP:WA, WP:OR, WP:CAL and WP:AK talkpages; maybe it'll also encourage people to build up articles from stubs to something better, and that way at least we can "clear some inventory"....I dropped by here to report on my breaking-out of separate language, government and ethno series of articles within BC, but I'll do that below rather than here, as I just happened to see this dicussion and decided to throw in my two bits (naika kwatah - "my quarter" in the Chinook Jargon)Skookum1 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes. Please visit and discuss. CJLippert 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am a member of the

• City of Novato (official website) Novato History Museum documents Coast Miwok Chief Camilo Ynitia lived in the area north of the city along with a picture of his daughters, Maria Maxima and Maria Antonia. Additionally, mention of the rancho San Jose to Ignacio Pacheco is made.

Question - Are those pictures considered in the public domain coming from a city website?

==

As is claimed here. Especially for cities where the related tribe has their own article, like Coloma, California. I don't see U.S. Euro-cities in any other state's Amerind cat. 71.231.107.188 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been following my edits and reversing them. As per our project's advice, we are identifying articles of interest for your project. It is my intent to join your project after I complete my work with the

WP:CAL project. We worked on Talk:Olompali State Historic Park

(please see that talkpage for our joint efforts).

Please see the typical edit warnings this user has his talkpage. He has been admonished not to do this type edit before (not just me) and is combative in edits with other articles. Ronbo76 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how places like Lompoc, California and San Carlos, California would qualify for this category.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know any relevant discussion, guideline, or policy pages? 71.231.107.188 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a sort of report on my busy-ness in the Indigenous-project related articles in BC this last week or two, especially in the last few days actually; I've gone through lists of First Nations governments that didn't have articles yet, and made at least stubs for them, likewise the Tribal Councils covering most of them, and in the process wound up trying to sort out some knotty problems; there's a long list of problems/complications which I won't go on about here (and y'all know how I can go on....) but it's worth reporting that following the guidelines arrived at in discussions here a while back, and within the layout of the articles tables on one of this project's pages, I've wond up separating and unknotting a lot of articles that were previously combining government, language and ethnography content in order to conform to the various categories and subtly-different definitions of people/ethno/history/culture vs. government/nation vs. community/place vs. language etc. (here in BC many FN people don't feel the band governments, for example, are legitimate, but are creatures of the

• First,
  WP:ENLANG
  .
• Second, of particular import to WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Endangered languages#Endangered Language Fund: Native Voices Endowment. Follow the link to an announcement on Linguist List.
• --
  Ling.Nut 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Damn it, I just noticed it was for

Gitxsan Nation, not the language. I'll move the comment and rating accordingly. --Miskwito 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An-...anyone? --Miskwito 06:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the links are for the current assessments. If you have dug the previous assessment out of archives, adjusted the articles and then the assessments, at that point, they become current and placing them in the current assessments are perfectly fine. CJLippert 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a large

Maybe establish a wiki link for all of them, and as articles are created, they will turn from "red" to "blue". However, I suspect the rate of article generation for these links would be rather slow. CJLippert 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Two words that often come up in North Aerican native topic articles are ambiguous, so it is best to link (on first reference) mentions of buffalo and elk. The North American buffalo article is at

I have an interest in understanding what to name the subsections for geographic area that I am editing history sections. For instance, for some geographic areas there will be three subsections: pre european, european arrival, and recent history. My question is to find some heading that is agreed upon that is a better discription than "pre eureopean." I gave the first section the title of "First Nation," but in reading around I have discovered that "first nation" is a term used for Canadians not current day U.S. lands. So. The place was what it was and was not considered "pre eureopean" by the people who lived there in that time. I don't like a title that says "pre" anything. Many place's history sections have a pre-some-date or pre-some-hisorical-reference-person's-name and this referencing really bothers me. Is there a standard already? Thanks!--al95521 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "Pre-Contact" is most common, but if you don't want to use that, First Nation and American-Indian are too general to be very helpful. You might try figuring out exactly which people lived there, and use their name for the section. I'm not totally clear on your question though, so maybe a more specific example would help? - TheMightyQuill 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

--al95521 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)As a newer editor I thought I should stick close to home and that is northern California.

I noticed that a few images are displayed in the gallery at

I found and moved four images. I didn't look systematically and may have missed some. Are they any others? Rmhermen 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found one: Image:Chippewa michigan logo.gif. And one on Wikimedia Commons which apparently is eligible for deletion: Image:Bandera Bay Mills.png. BTW, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the gallery was so large. --Iamunknown 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. The purpose of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe is to take stock of what is out there in the Wikimedia projects as a whole in order to help us assess where the problem areas are and to identify topic holes, and have a way to easily access all the Anishinaabe-related articles and images in order to do these assessments. So, miigwech (thank you) for finding these problem areas and bringing them up to our attention! CJLippert 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)