Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Knowledgeable people would be appreciated at Talk:Tongva

There's a history of sockpuppetry there, but I don't understand enough to know if it's good faith or bad faith, correct of incorrect. It just looks like a wall of text to me. It seems like the complaint is that "Tongva" is a made-up name for "Gabrieleño"? If so, is that completely bogus, ultimately correct but being handled poorly, or somewhere in between? If knowledgeable people could address the content issue, I'll try to address the sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I can only speak as someone who lives roughly adjacent to their lands, but I've only ever heard people use the name "Tongva". The old mission system exonyms are used in the earlier literature but in my experience they have very limited currency outside of those texts. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I went to look at the talk page and holy moley. I'm not knowledgeable about California communities and their histories enough to enter the fray. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the disputant, Harry A. White is correct, although his wall of text is nearly impenetrable (at least to my eyes). He refers to an essay by E. Gary Stickel, director of Environmental Research Archaeologists: a Scientific Consortium, called Why the Original Indian Tribe of the Greater Los Angeles Area is called Kizh not Tongva, which makes a good case that this people should not be called Tongva. Stickel is an expert in cultural resources, his bona fides are impeccable. I imagine that respectable sources might contend otherwise, but it would take better material than the somewhat shoddy stuff a user restored when he reverted my recent edits at Tongva with an insulting summary. I've reverted his reversion, with a note at the talk page. This is not simply a content dispute, this person restored dead links and improperly formatted cites, as well as a ref that has no mention of the subject it was supposed to support. Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So this disagreeable editor, Sumanuil, has reverted again, with the summary, "I fixed the deadlink, but it was part of your edit, so I had to do it afterward." which doesn't address any of the substantive changes, and he's not engaging (so far) on the talk page. What do you think of this, Floquenbeam? Carlstak (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked further in the article's revision history, and see this summary attached to a reversion by Sumanuil, "I know that's you. Using a different username isn't helping.", surely a reference to our disputant, but Sumanuil's later summary, "Still not fooling anyone." accompanying his first reversion of my edit implies that he thinks I'm that guy, which leads me to believe that he's reverting without even looking at the material, or checking to see if the edit was made by a different editor than the suspected sock. Carlstak (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry I couldn't look into this earlier, but I've had a lot on my plate. I'm not as familiar with this region, so I'm thinking this isn't an area where I can help sort out which content belongs, but what would probably be more useful, since I'm not involved in any of the editing, is if I can help with admin issues. I will try to look into the sock issues but I will probably need those who are up to speed on the conflict to point me at the policy violations for me to do any good here. Let me know if there is edit-warring or disruption by new accounts, in particular. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Belatedly responding to ping: I'm sorry, I'm not going to able to be online for the next couple of days. In very, very general terms: thanks, User:Carlstak, for the critical look. Thanks, User:Sumanuil, for trying to maintain quality in the face of Harryawhite's use of sockpuppetry . Please both of you discuss this; I am confident both are trying to maintain/improve quality, so please assume good faith in each other. In particular, Sumanuil, I am very confident Carlstak is not some new iteration of Harryawhite, if that is your concern, but someone helping out because of my notice here. I strongly suspect that this is not a simple "one name is 100% right, the other is 100% wrong" situation, we may have to say it's disputed and give both sides, if both sides have some academic/real life support. It looks like maybe there are political schisms in that community, and they're using the naming dispute as a proxy battle? Sorry, real life is not going to allow me to do much more than beg for cooperation for a few days. User:CorbieVreccan, thanks for offering to step in admin-wise if needed. The only admin help I can provide you briefly is that Harryawhite and Lauracusterwhite are obviously the same person (they claim to be husband and wife). Both have added reams of hard-to-parse verbiage, both have accused some professor of some kind of weird conspiracy. If they dial it back and stop accusing everyone of some kind of conspiracy, they might have something useful to say, but at this point if they both keep muddying the water so legit discussion can't occur, or keep pretending to be different people for evaluating consensus, I'd suggest just blocking them both and strong suspicion of any completely new accounts. To simplify the argument, I think buried somewhere in WP:SOCK is a comment that people in the same household with the same interests are considered one person, so you don't actually have to prove they're the same person (they are, though, IMHO). Sorry for the rushed reply, and sorry for stirring a hornet's nest and then running away... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Floquenbeam, much appreciated. User Sumanuil no longer seems to be disputing my changes. My intention from the beginning was to present both sides of the issue, which, given the controversial nature of the very name of this Native people group, is necessary, in my opinion. Since Sumanuil never responded to my note on the article talk page, I felt compelled to ping you for some admin input. I personally would change the name of the article to "Gabrieleño people", which would seem to be less controversial, given that apparently all the official groups claiming to represent them use "Gabrieleño" (or "Gabrielino") in their own group names, so it would seem to be less controversial than "Tongva". I wouldn't try to move the article or change the usage, though, until a consensus is established, if ever. Harryawhite's changes and walls of text on the talk page, though well-meaning, I believe, weren't helping. I appreciate his passion, but he'll sway no one that way. Carlstak (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Carlstak, Floquenbeam et al.: I apologize for assuming Carlstak was a sockpuppet. But, I have decided I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to continue editing the page. For me, this started as purely a matter of cleaning up what looked like vandalism/sockpuppetry, which is what I normally do. I never intended to take a side in this. Please, hash it out amongst yourselves, but I would rather you did not involve me further. Sumanuil (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project

Anyone familiar with this? An IP just prodded it. I deprodded as I think it can probably be fixed. Am I wrong? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Any Navajo / Dineh speakers?

Could use input here: Talk:Nádleehi#Need RS sourcing on dilbaa' etc. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Roxanne Swentzell (Santa Clara Pueblo)

Could someone please check the article on the Santa Clara Pueblo sculptor, Roxanne Swentzell, when they find a moment? I've made improvements to the article, removed potential copy vio material and possible original research; added citations; cleaned up the article; removed redundancy and "words to watch." It is currently assessed as a stub, (and had a citation maintenance tag). I removed the tag after resolving the citation problems. I think it can now be re-assessed as an article rather than a stub. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Netherzone the article looks great! Indigenous girl (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indigenous girl thank you for having a look at it and making edits to the article. I was wanting to change the rating from Stub to a C or even a B on the article talk page Talk:Roxanne_Swentzell in relation to the templates: WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America, and WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of America. What do you think? Netherzone (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In need of a new map of indian reservations in the United States

Originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe

According to the BIA there are 326 indian reservation in the U.S. The map in the List of Indian reservations in the United States article includes only the 310 as of May 1996. Wonderful if a member of this WikiProject could either find or create a new up-to-date map.
— User:Denisebk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a 1996 date for the map, but Denise appears to be correct. File:Bia-map-indian-reservations-usa.png was uploaded in 2006 and only lists 304 reservations in the continental US. The FAQ page at the BIA (see "What is a federal Indian reservation?") mentions 326 reservations (and only one of these is in Alaska). I have submitted a request to the map workshop. -Tea and crumpets (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

New Article Spelling

I'd like to see a stub article about this:

Wonchala - A Lakota idea that: We're thrown into a world of forces that we can't control, of powers that are much greater than us, and that we have this awareness that we're just small little humans beings, with so little influence on what's going on around us — when we start from there we then realise the it's up to us to make meaning and purpose out of this crazy world, to make something happen and create a story that is heroic, and takes the chaos into which we're throne and turns it into something beautiful, something that reduces suffering, something that crates pattern and order, something that we're proud to be apart of.

I think the spelling of "Wonchala" needs correcting? I tried searching online for the right spelling, though couldn't find anything. Does anyone know what the correct spelling is?

RW Marloe, can you tell us the source where you originally heard about this word? I wouldn't recommend starting an article without a few sources to prove the word actually exists. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Any Lenape speakers?

Could really use some input here. The Order of the Arrow Boy Scout group uses what they say are Lenape words in their naming of their group, titles, and songs. I looked up the original name of their group, and two other words in their songs in the Lenape dictionary on the Lenape language pages, and it's not there. The root phoneme is only in one of many variations of "brother", and the suffix of the form they're using looks Germanic to me. The full form seems to only exist in dictionaries by the Boy Scouts, and in a dictionary by Moravian priests. Could use some input here: Talk:Order of the Arrow#Wimachtendienk. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is still unresolved, I would recommend asking the folks at Native Languages of the Americas about this. They have a very useful website and are on a mission to provide accurate information about native languages. -Tea and crumpets (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount of push back on this topic over on the article. The fact that the Nation's own dictionary not being inclusive of terms used by the scouts is not enough for one or two individuals leads me to believe that nothing that Orrin or Laura could provide would be acceptable if the Lenape's lack of usage is not acceptable. It's very frustrating. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

So the issue is whether or not "Wimachtendienk" is an actual word in the Lenape language or was invented by the Moravians? Looking more carefully at the sources on the article regarding "Wimachtendienk:"

I might recommend contacting the people at The Lenape Talking Dictionary. They do say on their "About Us" page that the dictionary is a work in progress, so they may still have this word in their lexicons.

The Moravian Lenape-English dictionary seems to be a decent source for understanding where the BSA got the word and translation from, but it is hard to say how accurate it is.

This quotation shows the authors of the dictionary did admit that it had limitations: "No attempt has been made to increase the lexicography by the insertion of words or forms obtained from the Delaware of to-day...the editors confined their efforts to presenting this work as exclusively concerned with the dialect as employed by the Moravian Missionaries; and hence, all additions to the vocabulary have been from their writings." (From the preface: [1]) Perhaps one of the sources cited in the preface explains more about the origin or usage of the word "Wimachtendienk."

I wonder if there is a more recent peer-reviewed linguistic analysis of these Moravian dictionaries, or of the Lenape language in general. Perhaps try asking at the Language Reference desk for help finding such a source.

I am not trying to pick sides here, just analyzing the sources. I hope that helped. -Tea and crumpets (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've spoken with folks involved with the Talking Dictionary and knew the Snakes, two of their contributors. They don't claim a number of words utilized by the Moravians that they state were created for the purpose of conversion. They're don't have the time to put out a disclaimer simply for WP purposes. Folks that understand the language know that these words are not part of the language construct. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Creating an Importance Scale

I noticed that the Article Assessment page has no guide to measuring article importance for this WikiProject. Can we create an importance scale for this project? I think it would help us better identify which articles we need to get to GA status. Then we can unite our efforts on top-importance articles.

I would suggest something along these lines:

• Top: Articles pertaining to Indigenous peoples of North America as a group, internationally known tribes, key events in their history, and very famous individuals.

• High: Notable people and events, reservations, languages, tribes,

• Mid: Less well-known events, more in-depth concepts of language, history and culture

• Low: Articles that mention Native Americans but are not particularly about them.

We can put this template on the page:

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Cherokee, Battle of the Little Bighorn,
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	TBD
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	TBD
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	TBD
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	TBD

I have not been active in the project for a long time, so I am looking for input from you all before I do anything to the WikiProject page or make any assessments.

This is just off the cuff thinking from myself. Please feel free to add your input.

Tea and crumpets (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. An importance scale would definitely be helpful, especially for new members. I wrote this up before I realized that your suggestions differed from those in the example template you provided:

• Top: Subject is important to a thorough/foundational understanding of historical and ongoing systems and processes throughout Indigenous North America, as well as those subjects which have garnered significant international recognition. Broadly influential and/or “hot button” topics (trade networks, residential schools, Native American religions, Sitting Bull, The Trail of Tears, DAPL protests, and the Cherokee people).

• High: Subject is important for a thorough understanding of Indigenous history within and across the borders of contemporary North American nation-states and/or are nationally recognized. Does not quite qualify as a “hot-button” topic, but is nevertheless important (Metacomet, Cherokee language, Red Cloud’s war).

• Mid: Subject is of importance in understanding a particular culture or the history + contemporary events of a region, but may be considered of secondary importance on the national/transnational scale (Bear Lodge Mountains, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Haida argillite carvings).

• Low: Subject is of limited importance in understanding a particular culture or the history + contemporary events of a region (Joseachal, Wickaninnish Inn, hummingbird sage).

Having properly read your suggested language, however, I think it is a good way of wording it. I'm looking forward to learning what the others think, and thanks again for initiating this. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

American Indian creationism

American Indian creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Alcohol and Native Americans

A quick glance at this shows the sources need serious updating and the article needs NPOV work. More stereotypes here than actual scientific data. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Black drink could use a look for scientific/safety issues, as well. I just had to remove some dangerous stuff re-ingredients and usage. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Various cartographic projects + First Nations navboxes

Hi! Resident of Edmonton, Alberta (Treaty 6) here. Not the most experienced editor, but have a decent amount of practical knowledge with producing open-data cartographic materials. Updating Western and Northern Canadian geo-stubs has been my most recent interest, which has spilled over into producing various land claim maps. Here's a quick overview of Indigenous geography content that I've put on Commons so far:

Northwest Territories settlement regions

• 
  Wekʼèezhìı area co-managed by Tłı̨chǫ Government
• 
  Gwich'in Tribal Council
• 
  Sahtú Dene and Métis settlement region
• 
  The transboundary Inuvialuit Settlement Region

British Columbia traditional territory claims, 56 maps total, see Commons:Category:Maps of British Columbia Indigenous territories

• 
  Council of the Haida Nation
• 
  Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
• 
  Squamish Nation
• 
  Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw

I intend to follow up with Yukon traditional territories, a more sophisticated series of Numbered Treaty locators, and Wikimedia's first series of locator maps for individual Canadian reserves (especially in Alberta, where I've done most of the work already towards establishing a county-level locator map scheme). I've also created or significantly revised the following navboxes, none of which followed any consistent scheme across provincial boundaries:

I'm reasonably content with the hierarchical council-based organization, which is firmly grounded in Government of Canada data, but understand that the Ethnolinguistic groups section may take a bit more consensus. I've tried to default to endonyms in almost every situation, unless the exonyms are used by relevant Indigenous organizations (i.e. the near-universal use of 'Cree' by Cree governments). Does anyone have experience with this kind of situation, in a Canadian context? The British Columbia navbox, especially, grew so enormous that I'm certain any practiced eye will find plenty of mistakes in it.

Besides this housekeeping, what kind of cartographic needs does this project have right now? Most of my experience is north of the border, but using Wikipedia as a platform to make Indigenous geography accessible is one of my biggest interests. Awmcphee (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Tea and crumpets recently posted about trying to develop an updated map of reservations in the US. Might be worth getting in touch with them. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCommons has a category for US Indian reservations locator maps. There is a need for more locator maps on Wikipedia for Indian Reservations in the United States. Many of the reservation articles in List of Indian reservations in the United States do not have maps. Some are missing infoboxes as well. We were able to locate an updated .pdf map of Indian reservations in the United States from the Bureau of Indian Affairs website, but a simpler map of reservations in the country would be very useful. See discussion here.

I made some locator maps for Indian reservations years ago but honestly, I forgot how I did it and I don't think I have time to figure it out anymore. I had more free time back then. You are welcome to take a crack at it up there, Awmcphee.

This site is also another great resource for locating traditional lands of indigenous peoples. The site links to sources they used to help identify approximate pre-colonial tribal boundaries, which might help us make maps here on Wikipedia. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

New U.S. reservation locator map series

The wonders of automated image generation: I've just created and uploaded 335 new U.S. reservation locator maps, hopefully covering the entire Lower 48. Access them at Commons:Category:Locator maps of Indian reservations in the United States. I assembled a basket of data sources to ensure sensible coverage of margin areas outside U.S. territory, so Canadian Indian reserves are also included. (Useful for groups like the Blackfoot, which are divided by the international boundary.) However, Mexican Indigenous territories are not, out of unfamiliarity with that country's open data environment. Here's a closer look at the design choices I instructed the program to make:

2019 Indian reservation locator map series

• 
  Reservations are shown relative to the extent of their state.
• 
  Transboundary reservations are shown relative to the extents of all overlapping states.
• 
  Small reservations have a red circle drawn around their largest contiguous holding.
• 
  Both of the previous apply to small, transboundary reservations.

Please feel free to use Inkscape or a similar .svg file editor to improve these maps if you catch a small inconsistency or inaccuracy. Most notably, I told the program never to draw more than one circle, so reservations containing many small, dispersed parts (i.e. Mississippi Choctaw) may need extra circles added manually. The cutoff as to what determines a "small" reservation is also entirely arbitrary, being 0.2% of the surrounding state(')s(') land area. If you ever think it necessary, add or subtract circles as needed.

Actually using most of these maps on English Wikipedia might take a corresponding infobox-generation effort, especially for reservations which don't have their own articles (combined, as they often are, with that of the nation inhabiting them). I also notice that many pages which are exclusively for Indian reservations are still using Template:Infobox ethnic group for their infoboxes. As far as I understand, Infobox ethnic group is extremely underpowered (it doesn't support maps, among other things), so I would recommend switching to Template:Infobox settlement and will be doing so with my own edits - unless some prior consensus exists that I'm not aware of.

A single map showing all of these entities in one image will follow, as will a separate Alaskan series - any review that can be provided about my choices of which entities to include/exclude, and of the completeness of the series in general, would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Awmcphee (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Awmcphee, it looks great. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red, in several ways

Might want to check out August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move: Sámi shamanism → Sámi religion

Page move discussion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent

OK, we've gone back and forth on these a couple times (some past discussion) and I'm hoping for a bit more clarity. This is the current description, but I don't recall there being consensus for it, or for the criteria that seems to be currently applied:

This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who self-identify as being of Native American ethnic descent but do not belong to a Native American tribe.

I don't think we should put people who only have vague claims of distant heritage, and/or blood myths, in this category. I think to do so does a disservice to the people who are part of the community but simply do not meet enrollment criteria. Enrollment criteria varies widely between Nations, from very loose to very strict. Right now this cat is being used as a dumping ground for people that everyone knows are fantasists and false claimants. Worse, if you look at the section above, I just had to do a ton of cleanup on people from this cat being moved into the "descendants" and "21st Century Natives" category, when there is zero RS sourcing that they are even descendants. Zero. So, clearly we need criteria here.

I am proposing there needs to be some degree of sourcing to put people in this category. At the least, a Nation and ancestors named. Something more credible than, "Yeah, I'm (list of ethnicities) and Native American and (continued list of ethnicities)." I realize Wikipedians who think Native identity is racial rather than based in citizenship may not understand why this matters. But I'm hoping that the Wikipedians here who understand these issues will get why I'm bringing this up. There are legal issues that impact this, and that are impacted by this. And I'd like to have our cats sorted so we're in harmony with the laws, rather than pop culture "sources" and misconceptions about Blood Quantum etc. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

These categories are specifically a place to put people who "claim" (that's verifiable that they have made the claim.) Barely anyone with a Wikipedia article has documented tribal ancestry but isn't eligible to enroll (the only one I can think of right now is Rose B. Simpson). Plus, what person has documented Native ancestry but doesn't know what tribe? If you remove this category or remove the vague claimants from this category, then it's just nonstop edit-warring with uninformed editors to keep them out of actual Native categories. Yuchitown (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

That may be true for the CNO types, but not the tribes that have much stricter enrollment criteria. I do agree strongly that, if they don't know the tribe/Nation, it's a blood myth. If this is the slush pile for blood myths, the name of the cat can't imply the claims are true. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change of Category to harmonize with the description to include some form of the words:

"self-identified"

. This would solve the problem of us having to police and research the claims.

1. American People who claim Native American descent
2. American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent

• Support - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - oncamera 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Indigenous girl (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Mark Ironie (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mcelite (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Vizjim (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1. American People who self-identify as having Native American heritage
2. American People who self-identify as Native American descendants
3. American People of Native American Descent

• Support - –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I prefer 1. It's more concise; but since we're supposed to avoid "loaded" terms (see WP:CLAIM), perhaps the second is better. 4 is also concise but might not be as clear to to the average reader. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the category was fitting for anyone that has Native American heritage that is not "Full Blood" and it was cited through a WP:RS. We can't say oh they're claiming Native American heritage but they're not specifying the tribes so they must be lying or going by myth. That's taking things to a level of personal opinion which stands in the way of WP:NPOV and essentially saying if we can't trace it then they don't have it regardless if a WP:RS states that they have Native American heritage. That's basically going into the area of WP:OR by saying that's too vague they can't possibly be connected to a tribe/s or it's a family myth. NOT everyone that has Native American ancestry can go back to documentation that is a fact, and it is unfair to pull in opinion of well their statements or the WP:RS statement is irrelevant b/c we can't trace them back to a Roll or a Census. We don't treat other races in the same manner, and we certainly shouldn't get into the dangerous habit of being overly critical because an individual doesn't state the tribe/s they descend from.Mcelite (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As I've said above, and on your talk page, this has nothing to do with Blood Quantum. It is solely about citizenship, and the lack of RS sources to prove their citizenship or heritage. Just as no Wikipedian can decide who is a citizen of France, Germany, or the US, no Wikipedian can decide who is a citizen of an Indigenous Nation. Different Nations set their own citizenship criteria. We do not decide, we only document. WP:RS sources for citizenship are the Nations themselves, not self-identification, not anyone else's ideas of Blood Quantum. This category has never been about BQ. That is only your opinion. The category is described as self-identified, so the category name should be in accord and state, self-identified. You are also making the mistaking of racializing this, when it's about citizenship. I realize that's a common mistake, but we're trying to do cleanup here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite I have status but I am not a "Full Blood". I am a member of my Nation fully even though my ancestry is not fully indigenous to the Americas. My "Full Blood" relatives are no more members of my Nation than I am and implying that an individual with status that is not a "Full Blood" is a desscendant plays into blood quantum bs. My grandchildren are recognized by the community but do not have status. They know their relatives, ancestors and are culturally immersed. They are descendants and have heritage. This is how community sees these relationships. And individual who has proven ancestry but no cultural connection is still a descendant. People who claim to be Native American or First Nations without any knowledge of which Nation they supposedly descend from are almost always running on blood myths. The only exception is those that were adopted out. Nations decide who their relatives are whether is it by enrollment or decendancy. There is boh legal and cultural criteria that should be respected. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yipes, so many typos! I just got in from a very long road trip, my apologies! Indigenous girl (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I am also enrolled in my tribe and I don't take it for granted. I'm fortunate that my family stuck around long enough in a specific area to be documented others don't have that privilege. I want to first apologize if I seemed upset I hate writing b/c it fails to convey the emotion that is there. If we want to make a divide on citizenship and heritage fine. If that's what's being proposed but again as my previous statements we can't say who belongs and who doesn't because they're not specific about their tribe. If we want to keep people like Deb Haaland out of American people of Native American descent because she's enrolled fine, but in agreement that we don't go into overkill mode and say yes this source is good for saying this person is African American, Cuban, but Native American we can't include Native American regardless of what the WP:RS b/c we can't find their people on record which would be WP:OR. Again if we're going to set the bar for the category American people of Native American descent to this category will include ppl that have Native American heritage but they can't get enrolled in their tribe/s or we don't know if they are enrolled then fine. I will personally take out the category on Angel Goodrich's article b/c I'm pretty positive it is in her and she is a member of the Cherokee Nation.Mcelite (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are enrolled then you know that you are a citizen of your Nation, not a partial citizen if you have other ancestry. Again this is how this work. I am first and foremost a citizen of my Nation, not a half citizen because my other parent is indigenous to another part of the globe. A descendant is an individual without status who knows their ancestors but cannot enroll. It's very simple. Calling a member of a Nation less than that is utilizing colonial blood quantum politics. Angel Goodrich is not a descendant. She is an enrolled member of CNO. She is enrolled in her entirety. And because CNO doesn't even have BQ requirements it's incredibly offensive to enforce them on a citizen. Also, even if a family moved around often, if there were indigenous ancestors at some point in history they would have been enumerated or recorded. When it comes to listing ethnicity I prioritize my community and the community at large, respect culture and tradition and a tribe's right to determine who is and is not a member as well as the criteria of descendancy. Not everyone does and that's okay. You said, "Again if we're going to set the bar for the category American people of Native American descent to this category will include ppl that have Native American heritage but they can't get enrolled in their tribe/s or we don't know if they are enrolled then fine." It's not about setting a bar. A person who is a member of a Nation is fully a member of said Nation. It doesn't matter what their BQ is, period. It just doesn't. That is how citizenship works. I would like to think you know this. I think that it is important to have distinctive catagories. If an individual is enrolled then we should not devalue that. If a person has heritage but cannot enroll then we should not devalue that either. If an individual is making unsubstantiated claims then it is not on us to substantiate them but I suppose they should still have a category. Each category needs to be specific in it's description so that people are not devalued or we are not assigning value to an unsubstantiated claim. If I were to claim to be a citizen of another country but could not prove it the other country is not going to take me at my word. I would need to prove my citizenship. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a fair number of white Americans who honestly believe they have Native American ancestry, however little it might be. I am descended from Suki/Soucie/Susan/Sarah Robertson/Robinson, who is said in various family traditions to have been Cherokee/Choctaw/not otherwise specified Indian (the written account that my grandmother showed us stated that that her name was Suki and she was Cherokee). The details of the story seem to have drifted in the past two centuries. There are a lot of other people around who are also descended from her and her husband, James Townsend. From comments on the Internet, Suki/Soucie/Susan/Sarah had a white father, and was adopted and raised by his brother. She and James Townsend were married by 1815. Even if she had Native American ancestry, the last ancestor who was culturally Native American would have lived in the 18th century. As it happens, no one has found any documentation that she had any Native American ancestry, but at least some of her descendents still believe that she did. Personally, I thought it was a neat factoid when I first heard it in the 1970s, but I also realized that whatever Native American ancestry I might have was too small and remote to have any effect on my identity. And then the geneaologists in the family said they couldn't find any evidence that Suki was Cherokee. So, I am left with an unprovable possibility based on a family tradition that I might be 1/256th part or less Native American. That, and $5, will get me a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, some people do publicly claim Native American ancestry on such thin grounds. - Donald Albury 00:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

At Indigenous girl yes I do you're either a citizen or not. In the case of BQ specifically with Deb Haaland's case she was added to the category American people of Native American descent because her father is white. She was not placed in the category to diminish her Pueblo identity also there was no clear line made that people who are enrolled shouldn't be placed into the category. I was just basing the category strictly on blood not if the individual was enrolled or not I interpreted it as she is Pueblo by blood period and not full blood. Now again if we're going to keep people who are enrolled in a tribe/s out of the category then okay I have no problem with that. I'm firmly against blood politics it's done nothing but damage the tribes. Also you have to remember things at certain time periods were not recorded properly especially when you're dealing with people whom are descendants of the Eastern, Southeastern, and Midwest tribes it gets extremely messy especially with laws put into play that did paper genocide and only wanted to acknowledge colored or white. The Californian tribes will have far better records than let's say the Narragansett, and that's just b/c the history is different. We don't even know how many Native Americans were actually slaves through the 1600s to 1800s because the records were trash. I do apologize if it seemed like I was pulling in blood politics into this I'm very against it. I have friends that can't get enrolled b/c of blood politics or bad records but I respect them as descendants of the tribe. No they're not citizens but they are native by blood.Mcelite (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Lots going on here, so we should keep it simple: First, the category needs to be renamed so it's clear why people are added into it. It's not for enrolled citizens of tribes with a non-enrolled parent etc. It's for Americans who claim Native American descent, but aren't enrolled (for whatever valid or invalid reason). Therefore, 2 is my prefered renaming of the category. There's lots of discussion here about enrollment issues due to BQ, but none of us are the enrollment department of a tribe; therefore it's not something for us to decide how to differentiate from people with true/false claims of Native heritage. Enrollment/citizenship is a consistent standard to go by. oncamera 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

French and German nationality keep being mentioned here as analogous to Native tribal citizenship. So it's worth noting that there are categories for Category:American people of French descent, etc. These have no more rigorous standards than "this person has at one point claimed to be of French descent."Vizjim (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever course of action is selected I think it would be a very good thing to include a concise paragraph explaining the criteria for the category and why those have been selected as the most educational criteria.Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury Thank you for getting it :) Mcelite, regardless of where a Nation is located regionally there is still documentation. The Cherokee are the most documented Peoples in Indian Country. The Narragansetts whom you use as an example are well documented. There are records of contact, enumeration and later tribal rolls. The Narragansetts decide who is and isn't Narragansett according to this documentation. In Massachusetts there are records of enumeration as well as historical documentation beginning with first contact through to current day. The Massachusetts Nations decide who is and isn't a member of their communities. The midwest Nations have enumeration records as well as very detailed records from the Catholic church. It was actually a heck of a lot more difficult than people think to escape enumeration and record keeping. If a family left community their relatives and friends would include them in enumeration. With regard to your friends, if they have a connection to their respective community (their community claims them irregardless of enrollment) then that is one thing. If they are making claims without basis of facts then it's problematic and colonizing. Also, making a decision that goes against the community at large and/or a specific Nation and listing them as descendants even though they are not is misleading at best and absolutely plays into BQ politics. It doesn't matter who your parents are/were. If you are a member of your Nation you are a citizen and not a descendant. I'm with camera and Pliny the Elderberry. We need something very concise as a title with a detailed description. I think #2 is probably best with a well thought out explanation to alleviate any misunderstanding. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's one idea: change the name to one of the above suggestions (for what it's worth I would also support American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent), but then make that purely an organizational category, with a note that "Native American" is not generally a valid category in issues of descent. Then create sub-categories in that category for each tribal nation as needed. So you would have, for instance, American people who self-identify as being of Ojibwe descent, which would cover such people as Margaret Noodin. You also can that way insist on tribal affiliation outside of citizenship, without getting into a race vs citizenship confusion that is as someone above notes not understood by many editors. Each sub-cat could have an introduction para stating that it is for individuals who have claimed descent from the specific tribe without being citizens of the nation. Vizjim (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Except Margaret doesn't self-identify. She's recognized and accepted by the community as being Nish. She has directly collaborated with people like Howard Kimewan, a highly respected Traditions Keeper from Wikwemikong. This is why I feel we need three catagories. She, to the best of my knowledge, is not enrolled/status however she is without a doubt accepted by the Anishinaabe community in the US and Canada. With regard to your previous statement,"French and German nationality keep being mentioned here as analogous to Native tribal citizenship. So it's worth noting that there are categories for Category:American people of French descent, etc. These have no more rigorous standards than "this person has at one point claimed to be of French descent." the problem is when people simply use Native American. That is like an individual stating they are of European or North American descent. It's extraordinarily vague and, at least within community, very silly. I realize we are not writing for people within community alone however I would rather see the dominant culture educated rather than continuously citing inaccurate and embarrassing information in their over generalization. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Three categories as in: 1. Citizen 2. Noncitizen of specified nation but "recognized by community" (how would that work, BTW? Would John Smelcer pass the test?) 3. Noncitizen and not recognized by community? And would the subcategorization I mention not be sufficient to prevent the catch all "Native American descent" claim?

I'm with User_Talk:Oncamera and User:Pliny the Elderberry the summary must be present in the category to avoid this type of vagueness and confusion again. I don't believe the name needs to be changed otherwise we're taking a step in the direction of being speculative which is why the category People that self-identify as Cherokee was deleted b/c it turned into a category that was taking a subliminal swing at individuals b/c they weren't enrolled in the Cherokee Nation. We don't hold the same standard of including self-identify to other categories such as American people of French descent or American people of Cuban descent therefore we shouldn't include self-identify for this one.

Indigenous girl yes the Cherokee are the most documented by far can't argue that but again that brings into the issue that everyone wasn't documented and we know that's a fact. There's also the issue of individuals no being accurately documented and of course the $5 Indian (white ppl that paid to get on rolls and censuses to gain land). We can't paint everyone with the same brush b/c everything wasn't documented or records were manipulated it's a complicated history especially for specific tribes. I say keep the same name but make sure the summary is absolutely clear as to who belongs in the category so yes a cleanup will have to be done to make sure anyone who is enrolled is not in the category.Mcelite (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel we need three categories. One for people who are Native American - who are members of their Nation, one for actual descendants like Margaret Noodin who may not be enrolled or have status but are obviously claimed by their respective communities and one for people like perhaps Smelcer who makes claims which are not backed up by community or people who simply claim Native American and no Nation. Smelcer has a lot to say on his various pages but these claims have not proven to be true. Mcelite if a family was not documented and chose to assimilate during the Dawes period or any other period for that matter their ancestors would have been enumerated. As far as $5 indians go, well, those families are now enrolled and it is what it is. If an individuals ancestry is previous to enumeration then they are very distantly connected to their communities. If nothing was done to connect with these communities for multiple generations then I don't really know what to say. Being indigenous isn't about self-declaration. It is about culture and community. If there is nothing at all to connect said person with any Nation then there is no way to know whether that individual claims are blood myths (which, more often than not they are) or based in reality. I do not feel that it is appropriate to be modern day indian agents granting indigeneity to nouveau $5 indians here on wikipedia or anywhere else. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

While I see us also considering creating some new sub-categories, I see a consensus for aligning the cat name with the cat description, and that #2 is the consistent choice. So I'm going to start enumerating the supports to make it clear to new readers. I'll start with adding myself, and encourage others to do their own. If folks don't return to the discussion we'll eventually total based on the discussion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm for making sure it is clearly summarizing that American people of Native American descent is strictly for people who are not enrolled in their tribe/s or the tribe they descend from isn't known through the WP:RS. Will we also apply this to the category Native American sportspeople b/c that category also didn't have a summarization and people who were enrolled and people not enrolled are included in the category. Indigenous girl I respect and completely understand your viewpoint. You have to take into account every individual wasn't properly enumerated also there were laws and events that certainly negatively impacted the native community. Things like the Jim Crow laws, Segregation, and Racial Integrity Act heavily played a role in destroying cultural connections and forced assimilation. Therefore created generations that aren't culturally nor communally connected even losing information on what tribe/s they descend from. That's whole deep conversation in itself and I don't mind discussing it with you on my page I do enjoy listening to different viewpoints. Especially those that effect the communities.Mcelite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This semantic and grouping issue is sometimes difficult to parse. Once you take as a given Tribal sovereignty concerning decisions on citizenship, that make one pretty clear and definable category. I see that as a core group/circle by specific tribal citizenship. The group outside of that mostly falls to descendants and those who self-identify as "Native American". There are variants and crossovers with the last two groups but this seems like a workable breakdown of the cats. At this point, there are 5-6 editors in support, more or less, of American People who self-identify as being of Native American descent as covering the category. Mcelite seems to be the only consistent oppose. I'd say that's a consensus for the change. I'll try to get to implementing it later today or anyone else can start to change the cat on articles. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If this name change is done then all the other categories that are structured this way should also be changed i.e. American people of Cuban descent, American people of French descent, American people of Puerto Rican descent etc. It makes no sense to change the name when we can monitor the category and keep the summary so other editors understand how the category is structured. Again if we change the name then it should apply to the other categories as well.Mcelite (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, Mcelite, to propose changes to those categories on their talk pages. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if criteria is clearly provided we need not rename the category. While it is important to confront the appropriation of Native American culture, it is also important to be aware that the distinct category title we seem to be leaning towards is reflective of the unique and problematic scrutiny that Native American identity is subjected to. There are, as CorbieV points out, very salient legalistic concerns behind the "self-identification" distinction, but again I feel that these can be addressed through description in a manner that doesn't risk, however unintentionally and subliminally, suggesting that every member should be treated with an element of suspicion (especially since we seem to be dedicated to monitoring it). On the basis of these concerns I am logging a placeholder vote of "oppose", but I am more than interested in further feedback. On a separate point, having noted that our discussions seem to hinge quite heavily on tribal citizenship, where would those individuals who belong to peoples who do not have the good fortune to be federally recognized would fit in to all this? Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pliny the Elderberry, while you make valid points, the core issue rests on reliable sources. I have not done an exhaustive study of the people currently under the category of "American people of Native American descent" (375 pages which includes 31 other cats) but virtually none are tribal members as far as I can see. This also concerns biographies of living people in most cases. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In the main category (self-identified Native descent), I've monitored many of these pages for years. They are the BLPs where, with zero sourcing of descent, and even sometimes after the tribes have issued statements that the person isn't a member (see Kelsey Chow) fans keep adding them back. The people with actual sourcing are all in the named tribe cats, or named tribal heritage cats. If they have any sourceable heritage, they're in a more specific category. Or should be. If they get put here by mistake, we can move them. Blatantly: this is the slush pile. We can try to keep it clean, but this is what it is. One guy that I removed yesterday, was listed as having heritage for no other reason than having been in a Boy Scouts troupe that mimicked Native dances as a kid. I still think egregious things like that should be deleted wholesale. I was for deleting this category entirely until Yuchitown reminded me that those who can never be sourced as having heritage, because they have none, will keep getting added back to the tribal cats if we don't rename this one and let them stay here. That's what changed my !vote. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also going through the cat again and doing cleanup. I was expecting I'd have to move the few actual Natives and descendants there into more appropriate cats, but the few I've found are already in those cats and this superfluous one just needs to be removed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. If it really is that egregious and has been so consistently over time then I understand the conviction behind the distinction. I remain uncomfortable with it, but if Indigenous girl and Yuchitown feel it is the best among our options then I will defer to them. So long as the "self-identified" label is not present on the pages of individual nation's descendants (Choctaw, Ojibwe, etc.) then I suppose we'll avoid the most problematic caveating. As a final point, I do want to be sure that enrolled members and descendants of non-federally-recognized nations are not falling between the cracks here for lack of "official" sourcing (I apologize if this last sentence sounds a bit blunt, 'tis not my intention). Best Regards, Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It really is that egregious and consistent. I agree that self-identified should not be present on the pages of legitimate descendants. This was happening not only to legitimate descendants but to enrolled individuals as well and this is unacceptable. With regard to tribes lacking federal recognition this is a complicated issue. There are legitimate state recognized tribes but there are also hundreds and hundreds of groups that are 501C3s, social organizations and the like that have no business being called a 'tribe'. That needs to be acknowledged and respected. These fake tribes are as threat to legitimate tribal entities. They appropriate funding, perpetuate stereotypes and in many cases cause harm and general frustration to legitimate Peoples and communities. I need to not and acknowledge that I really appreciate you listening. It's not a particularly common practice here so it means a lot. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome,Indigenous girl. I firmly believe that one cannot speak about a community without speaking and listening to that same community, so your experience in these discussions ought to be respected. By that same token, however, I do continue to believe that if we are to engage in the categorization of people by nation/national descent it is extremely important that we do not exclude those of unrecognized nations. I am responding so late because it was important to me to take time to consult with my mentors, both enrolled and not, before I do so. Governments decide who they recognize (and this will always be a largely political decision), but they cannot decide what nation does or doesn’t exist. There are and likely always will be some degree of tension between recognized and unrecognized communities; that’s the unfortunate effect of a system that has historically sought to divide and exert control, not least through the construction of a zero sum game for the acknowledgement and resources that all nations enjoyed before colonization. However, when you truly are the heir to a nation’s culture, history, and a member of a still-living community (and not some preposterous boy scout troupe), that identity is self-evident, even if not conveniently approved and logged by a government. It is not lightly that I speak in a manner divergent from the points you made; your experience far outstrips mine as a descendant, so it was again very important that I consult with indigenous community members first. Based on those conversations, I believe that we must not allow an oppressive colonial system to dictate who is or isn’t a real nation. Such decisions will always have a strong element of subjectivity involved and have been made by a system that neither understands nor cares about the complexities of what constitutes an indigenous people/nation (hence the near meaningless umbrella term “tribe”). Again, these realities will always be complex and even thorny, but I think that this should be recognized as the nature of the reality we try to represent here on Wikipedia. If the criteria for the categories under discussion continues to be based on the basis of legally consequential citizenship, so be it; it will be accurate and consistent at the least. We must, however, remain open to there being space for the existence of cultural communities independent of legally-bestowed autonomy; if not here then elsewhere, should someone create it. Thank you again, Indigenous girl for participating in this conversation, and please feel free to continue it here or, if you have more personal concerns, on my user talk page. I apologize if anything I have said comes off as aggressive or arrogant, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Pliny the Elderberry thank you for your response. You did not come across as aggressive or arrogant, please don't be concerned about that. It's going to take me a little bit to come up with a response that is clear and concise. Indigenous girl (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Mcelite is now altering the descriptions of the Natives in sports and modeling categories to include descendants,[2],[3] and then adding descendants (including those without RS sources, who likely have no heritage at all) to these "Native American people" categories. This is going against consensus and the WP rules of sourcing. It is also going against the definitions of Native identity that have been established for the categories. I see this as an attempted end-run around the consensus here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I created those categories in the first place and the people in those categories have an WP:RS. I did nothing wrong.Mcelite (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The ones who are Native stay; the self-identified people you're adding are getting removed because, no, they don't. And your posting in various places that WP policy overrides tribal sovereignty... yeah, well, we've been over this ad nauseum. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I object to the use of "self-identified" and "claim" labels unless they're supported by reliable sources that use the same terminology, which they almost always aren't. If reliable sources say that someone is a descendant even though they lack tribal citizenship for whatever reason, then we simply describe them as a descendant. We shouldn't have a category for people whose ancestry is not reliably sourced.

I understand that "Native by blood" does not mean that someone is "Native" in a cultural or citizenship context, but reliable sources regularly describe people's Native ancestry and our categories should reflect that coverage. I do think that European citizenship vs ancestry is a valid comparison: We have Category:German people and Category:People of German descent, even though members of the latter are not recognized by the German government, have no claim to citizenship and often lack meaningful cultural connections. We take the sources that describe their German ancestry at face value, without the use of caveats. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Related: Page move discussion

We had the same sort of mess over at List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry as in the cat we moved above. Indigenous girl and I have done a lot of cleanup, but due to the same perennial problems as discussed above, we probably will need to move the page. We could use some more folks weighing in at: Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Cleanup; especially at Talk:List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry#Proposed Move. Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of African-American and Native American ancestry. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

New move/merge discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent which from what I can tell, is basically a proposal to revert to the cat name before this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

All the "self-identified" people have been moved back to the descendants category.

Even if they have zero RS sourcing for this. See Category:American people of Native American descent etc. Even after all the work we did. So, now, if there are no RS sources, I'm just removing the cat. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait... The self-identified cat is still there. I guess some people are just moving some of them. Uh, OK. What a mess. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the entries have no sourcing for the "self-identified" claim. I've been moving them to Category:American people of Native American descent if they are supported by a reliable source or removing the category if it is unsourced, based on our usual RS criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind helping move some of the articles back when I have some extra time.Seminolegirl94 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If there's no sourcing for them being Native, they shouldn't be in any of these categories. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The "self-identified" cat has been retained. permalink to close If the "source" for identity in the article is only an interview, that is a statement of self-identification. The source does not need to use the words "self-identified" to be put in that cat. Most publications, especially entertainment and sports outlets, never fact check. But even the New York Times has skipped fact-checking, and included interviews with non-Natives as "Native" sources. And they have included seriously wrong details in obits and bios about Natives (and others from non-mainstream communities). One of the reasons Native heritage is not the same as, say, German heritage among Americans, is that Americans will make false claims in order to try to claim benefits - school scholarships, Affirmative Action positions, job posts, etc. It's not a neutral act. I could cite some examples but most people know some already. The records are not in a foreign country where English isn't spoken, they are right here, and the cousins that would know the person are living and can say whether or not the person is a relative. It's really not the murky, mysterious thing some would have people think. As Wikipedians, we are not here to make people feel good about their family stories, but to keep BLPs and historical articles accurate. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for staying the course on this unending discussion. Agree that Native Americans in the United States have a unique political status that no other group has, that must be verified to appear in Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

List of fictional Native Americans

Just found this. Just how fictional should this be? Should it include characters that are awful misrepresentations and/or degrading, racist portrayals without comment? Should we be bold and remove the inventions that are just non-Native fantasies that in no way represent Native people, aside from the author saying the fictional character they invented is Native? Is it enough to call a character Native American if in all ways it's just a total lie in a loincloth? Or is it a good place to include some sourced commentary on what sort of representation it is? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Fictional is fictional. Leave the good and the bad, note section can be used to add relevant commentary. oncamera 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Great Spirit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for new 'California' maps

A map of California tribal groups and languages at the time of European contact.

I've long been familiar with maps like this one at Indigenous peoples of California and thought the Washo don't really deserve being cropped at the state line. There's no Indigenous peoples of Nevada and Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin doesn't solve the mystery of two Paiute territories, but Northern Paiute people does have a very useful map. Is anyone working on a map for Modoc people, not found at Native American peoples of Oregon either? Sparafucil (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Gradual Civilization Act (Canada)

Hoping an editor more familiar with this topic can have a look at recent changes to Gradual Civilization Act, where an editor who has made POV edits to unrelated articles has changed the wording of the article from suggesting this legislation mandated enfranchisement to instead suggesting enfranchisement was voluntary. Unfortunately the article is only sourced to the Act itself, so hopefully someone can also add some scholarly criticism to back up whichever view is correct. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Qwo-Li Driskill page in progress after previous deletion

Hello! I'm working on creating a page for Qwo-Li Driskill in my sandbox, and I understand that Driskill's page has been created and deleted before because of insufficient non-primary citations. It was suggested to me that I bring the page here for feedback before trying to publish it again. Would someone mind taking a look at it? I'm an academic librarian and have access to most paywalled academic sources, if that's helpful (and if there's anything you need cited from behind a paywall on another page, I'd be happy to track down a source--just let me know).

I am very new to Wikipedia editing, and I apologize for any weird formatting and rookie mistakes. Kbkrat (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

They're not enrolled as a Cherokee, are they? We've had a lot of problematic articles about such claims in the past on this page. That issue should be addressed in their article that you're writing. "Non-citizen" is vague. Others may be able to help with how that is currently being addressed -- I wasn't involved in those discussions but I know they were significant. oncamera 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to recreate this article. Driskill is not Native, their writing has no grounding in Native culture. Does everyone who's ever written anything need a Wikipedia article? Yuchitown (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

As far as I can tell, they are not enrolled Chrokee. The "noncitizen" language is from their bio. I got interested in writing this page because I'm interested in bringing more pages on transgender and nonbinary writers and artists to Wikipedia, and Driskill was recently featured in a book about nonbinary identities and resources. I didn't realize that s/he was a controversial figure until the page I created was deleted. ETA: I would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article, but I will also back off if that's the consensus of this project. Thanks for your comments! Kbkrat (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear — looking at the deletion log — Qwo-Li Driskill's article was deleted due to "No evidence of notability, no independent sources, possible copyvio," not due to any controversy. (Full discussion here.) Wikipedia does not censor. Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

You might consider writing about Geo Neptune (Passamaquoddy), a nonbinary basket maker, Wabanaki cultural advocate, and model who has been exhibiting nationally and received a great deal of press in recent years. Yuchitown (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thanks for the suggestion! It looks like Geo Neptune has a page under Geo Soctomah Neptune, but I bet I could add to it. Kbkrat (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I had no idea. Thanks! Yuchitown (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

There was also a problem in the past of some spamming of the 'pedia with Driskill's writing, in the form of citespam and "further reading" type mentions. As the writing was, as Yuchitown states, not grounded in Native cultures, but rather in postmodern queer studies, it added mistakes to a series of articles. Though the additions were probably well-intentioned (and by students, most likely), they weren't accurate, and consensus on talk and in the wikiprojects was to remove them. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I think I'm going to just let the draft sit until I have more experience with Wikipedia or until this group decides otherwise. Kbkrat (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you, Kbkrat, for checking in with us and for being such a terrific sport! Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to the experts! Kbkrat (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Odd list

List of Native American peoples in the United States—What is this article and why does it exist? I came across it while trying to fix incoming links to First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun. Many Canadian peoples are included in the list, even though they have no satellite communities in the US or historical territories in what is now the United States. The whole thing seems misleading and pointless. Writing-on-stone (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)writing-on-stone

It's funny that Sioux isn't even on that list. Aren't there categories that do the same thing as this list? oncamera 04:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the material can be found elsewhere in a more reliable state. Also just found this List_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_Canada. Writing-on-stone (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Writing-on-stone.

Another perennial that attracts inaccuracies, self-promoters and various spamities: List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas, could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Woodlands needs work

and I have neither the time nor the knowledge to do it. I see that the book Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia says "The Eastern Woodlands culture area is, in a very general sense, that portion of North America east of the western Plains and prairies and south of the boreal forest. This general definition is neither accurate nor particularly useful, however, for the locations of the borders of these plant communities were dramatically different at times in the past. Southward-creeping glacial ice pushed bands of tundra and boreal forest into the southern Great Lakes region and New England, and grasslands thrust a wedge deep into the heart of the Midwest during the later...."[4] but I'm hoping someone better at this than I am could take a look at the article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

After a quick look at the article, it appears to be heavily slanted to Eastern Woodland peoples in Canada. Unfortunately, I am familiar primarily with literature about Native Americans of Florida, and I also lack the time to provide better balance to the article. I may try to provide a wider perspective of languages spoken in the area. - Donald Albury 14:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Matoaka

Pocahontas needs serious help. Still full of all of Smith's fantasies and confabulations. Also, that and John Rolfe and related articles are being vandalized by drivebys trying to insert false info about nonexistent extra children of Matoaka, in order to fabricate fake descendants, thereby using WP to perpetuate a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Redhawks

Discussing options. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

MMIW

Talk:Missing and murdered Indigenous women about the same blanking of content that was happening in the Spring. Could use more eyes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent is under discussion at CfD

Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this...

Look what I found. How (greeting). I don't even know what cats to put it in. It's not real Indigenous language. I mean... WTF? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hau is a male Lakota greeting for another man, but yeah, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yuchitown (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yeah... I considered adding that. And that it's sometimes used in a related? similar? form in some other languages, kind of, but, yeah... along with WP:NOTDIC I'm not even sure I want to try to explain the subtleties of that on here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mascot issue Skowhegan, ME

I could use some eyes from folks familiar with mascot issues over at the Skowhegan, Maine article. Thanks Indigenous girl (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl: I'll look at the article and talk page, and see if there is anything I can help with. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No Grand Canyon wikiproject?

I'm posting this here as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arizona because it's under the WikiProjects' areas. I was just about to start the GAN review for Grand Canyon (book) and was surprised to not see a Grand Canyon WikiProject, or a task force relevant to one of the three mentioned WPs, on its talk page. I think that as a book on the subject, it may not be deemed relevant to Protected areas/Arizona/Indigenous p. of N. America individually, but that because of the subject matter it was surprising that there's no associated WikiProject to assess its coverage. I would propose a Grand Canyon project/task force myself, but am working a lot in article improvement at the moment. If any of the wikiprojects addressed would consider e.g. collaborating on a task force, I would probably join in, though! Just thought I'd leave the message and the idea. Kingsif (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that most Wikiprojects are barely limping along as it is. I would say that only Wikiprojects with a broad subject area have much chance of being useful, and the Grand Canyon is a pretty narrow subject area. You can always start a project yourself. I started one many years ago. It has since then been relegated to a sub-project, and I have not been active in it for many years. - Donald Albury 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I could try start a taskforce (best option I think), but as I'm not a regular contributor to any of the above projects, I wouldn't want to step on any feet. Kingsif (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Live Links in Red Link Sections

Should I go ahead and remove articles that have actually been created from the "articles requested" section? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation

There is a new editor as well as two IPs removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. I sourced their first add but then they added quite a bit of info and there is no way I can source all of it. I could use a hand keeping an eye on things to keep it balanced. Thanks! Indigenous girl (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The proxy IP on this article, and a new account on a similar heritage group article today, have been doing these edits where they blank critical content and paste in promotional, uncritical, or irrelevant copyvio content from other websites. If folks notice these types of edits, with the large, unformatted data dumps, running Earwig may prove helpful. If it's a copyvio, revert, flag for the reverted version(s) to be hidden by an admin, and warn the user on their talk page about our WP:COPYVIO policy. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sappony and List of unrecognized tribes in the United States

Can anyone check the recent IP edits here please? And this[5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried to ask about the Sappony article the other day, but now see I left the message in the wrong place. Looks to me like someone is trying to create some sort of legitimacy for an unrecognized tribe. I reverted the edit to the list of unrecognized tribes. If there is no strong objection here, I'll try cleaning up the Sappony article. - Donald Albury 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Those were my thoughts also. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This needs more eyes. - Donald Albury 14:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Inuit religion

Some large additions were made to this article. It looks to me like they are from anthro sources. Could use more expert eyes on this. Also on linked article, Alaska Native religion. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Shoshone and Paiute myths of little people/dwarves etc - Nimerigar a mess, issue about title

Please see Talk:Nimerigar. Ever so often I look at this and think "what a mess". It probably needs multiple redirects and certainly needs cleaning up. Help?! Doug Weller talk 11:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Unistʼotʼen Camp

Might benefit from more eyes, see Talk:Unistʼotʼen Camp. I'm not sure about today's edit. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Allan W. Eckert -- reliable source?

I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:

• A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (1992)
• The Frontiersmen: A Narrative (1967)
• That Dark and Bloody River: Chronicles of the Ohio River Valley (1995)

Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched.

I posed these questions at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Allan_W._Eckert (permalink) Please respond there.

If there is a list of reliable and unreliable sources specifically for this project, such as WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, please let me know here. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Archelological Site 4-SK-4

I would like someone (more-than-one?) too look at Archelological Site 4-SK-4. I want to make sure I have the right verbiage, wiki-style, that I am not misrepresenting information, etc. There isn't much information online on this unique place. So, I thought to give it a home in Wikipedia. In advance, thank you! Fimbriata (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cherokee spiritual beliefs#Story of Corn and Medicine

Something's wrong here as the source calls this 'The Three Worlds'. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Archaeologists Have a Lot of Dates Wrong for North American Indigenous History — But Are Using New Techniques to Get It Right"

The title of an article here. The article is mainly about Iroquoian sites and notes that radio-carbon dating gives different dates from the traditional ones. It argues that this is because "scholars viewed the topic through a pervasive colonial lens. Researchers mistakenly assumed that trade goods were equally available, and desired, all over the region, and considered all indigenous groups as the same." It's worth reading. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)