Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27: 90 days

Indigenous peoples of North America

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles

The template for “Anishinaabe Culture” divided into two templates: "Anishinaabe Culture" and "Anishinaabe Politics"

IMO, these are separate topics. For the former I edited the existing template including creating more groups. For the latter I just did a copy and paste onto a new template thus it needs much additional work. --Denise B-K (talk)

Academic journal article of interest

This academic journal article mentions several members of WP:IPNA. Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia - published yesterday in the journal, Settler Colonial Studies, published by Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2024.2358697?src=exp-la – if that link doesn't work try this one: – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2024.2358697

Note that the footnotes on the T&S website are buggy, you may have to copy and paste the urls into a browser to see the diffs in the footnotes. Netherzone (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the article. It is a lot to take in. I have been concerned about the lack of Native American history in "History of..." or the History section of articles about places, but I had not realized that someone had been deleting them. I have added them where I could, but that might be a new niche for me... to look for missing sections about Native Americans.

There is a lot to take in. I am not sure that it tells the full story of the problem. I think that there are more ways that there is a lack of objectivity and openness.

There is also a great opportunity here. For instance, as forward-thinking as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may be, it has been rejected by the U.S. and Canada. It would be great to see objective articles that tell the truth of Native American history and Native Americans as people to help change public perception about what indigenous people have experienced since colonization, particularly to the people that tried to build relationships with people in government and mediated for treaties to have more and more land and rights taken away over time. It would be nice, and in my mind necessary, for Wikipedia to be objective in the handling of Native American issues and have input from editors who are Native Americans.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that in many cases any content in WP about the Native American history of places in the U.S. is poorly sourced, and often so vaque as to be useless. While citing sources, the content at Lakeland, Florida#Early history, for example, tells us nothing specific about the early history of the city. The content at History of Bartow, Florida#Pre-Columbian era to statehood is even more verbose, without actually telling us anything about the history of the site where the city now stands. There are also plenty of articles about places in the U.S. that do have usable content about Native American history in the area: see History of Gainesville, Florida#Native American, Pre-European, or Ocala, Florida#History, or Brevard County, Florida#History. I would like to see a list of articles from which Native American history has been removed, to see what was actually removed. I know that many articles about places in WP should have (more) coverage of pre-European history, but in many cases that may be best handled by linking to articles that cover such history for a wider area, if there are no reliable sources for the early history of a specific place. Donald Albury 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author's email is linked at the beginning of the article. I'm sure they would be willing to share the examples they found that led them to their conclusion. Yuchitown (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add to my to do list. Having just finished Chatot, I was planning to work on some non-Native American history for a while. Oh well. Donald Albury 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to my to do list Donald Albury at Working on. I was going to start with some of the Colorado places that I haven't deliberately worked on. It is great that you have an interest in Florida places. Thanks, Yuchitown for the suggestion to contact the author. I will do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to email that author? If so, we should coordinate. I think it would be best if only one of us requests the list, and then shares it here. Donald Albury 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, Donald Albury. Go for it. I didn't realize you were thinking of that, too. If you wouldn't mind sharing what you learn, that would be wonderful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for sharing "Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of Native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia", Netherzone! I'm glad User:Indigenous girl and User:CorbieVreccan's stories are preserved in a scholarly journal, that we lost two brilliant editors due to non-Native fragility. Kyle Keeler provided excellent analysis.

“

I find that erasure manifests in three compounding ways: First is Erasure by Omission: Many of Wikipedia's American history pages leave out Native histories and replace them with colonial narratives. The second is Refusal as Erasure: settler nationalists refuse to add scholarship that resists colonial histories. This strategy creates a hostile environment for Native and allied editors. Many leave Wikipedia as a result, which leads to the final step, Editor Removal as Erasure: if Indigenous and allied editors do not leave on their own accord, settler nationalists turn content disputes into conduct disputes, arguing Native and allied editors are activists there to distort history. Native and allied editors are removed from the project, and when they are no longer present to resist erasure and replacement, settler nationalists claim digital space more easily by replacing Native histories with colonial ones. Erasure of knowledge gives way to literal erasure and replacement.

”

This was a heart-breaking loss to the community, and continues to play out less dramatically on an ongoing basis. Yuchitown (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% Yuchitown, Kyle Keeler did an excellent job on the article. I deeply miss the presence and efforts of Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan. They both made incredibly well-researched contributions to IPNA and its associated articles. The depth of each of their respective knowledge and understanding of community was exceptional. They did stellar work for the encyclopedia, and I'm still very saddened about how their voices were silenced by WP. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can easily see the trends Keeler describes in the many efforts to remove the word genocide from articles relating to Indigenous peoples' histories. Cornell Law School mentions "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group", so the starvation on reservations, removal of Indian children into residential schools, and forced sterilization of Native women without their knowledge or consent that continued into the 1970s in the US and at least the 1990s in Canada makes it clear that genocide occurred here. Yuchitown (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

It was. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Frankly, Keeler's essay. seems rather juvenile in its aspect, typically aimed at a young and naive college audience. Aside from playing the race/ethnic card at every turn, he uses the obtuse term, "settler nationalists", or other such variants, such as "settler colonial erasure", some 88 times. This coming from someone who teaches at and draws a paycheck from Lafayette College, founded in 1826 by "settler nationalists". His right to free speech, and other such rights, is also the product of "settler nationalists". He also ignores the fact that settlers were those who came to the new world in the 1600 and early 1700s, yet he refers to the lot of us editors today as "settlers". He typically confuses the idea of "genocide" with any sort of warfare, ignoring the fact that many Indians were bent on settler removal over the entire continent, and resorted to unspeakable tactics that also effected women and children, while Lafayette college (under investigation for promoting antisemitism) openly called for the genocide of Jews and, to use Keeler's own term, "settler nationalists", across America, when protestors at Lafayette College, and elsewhere, chanted "death to Israel" and "death to America".i.e.genocide.
— In any case, yes, Keeler resorts to general overtures in his accusations of "colonial erasure" here at WP, but never outlines any definitive examples. e.g.The use of the term "genocide", while such attempts certainly occurred at the hands of both Indians and settlers, is an idea too often equated with general warfare and is often misused by professors, activists and other like minded individuals. Please tke a close look at that essay -- lot's of generic claims and footnotes -- no actual examples. He cites one incident where an editor was banned for constant disruptive behavior, which Keeler assumes was only part of a greater conspiracy by "settler nationalists" trying to erase American Indian POVs, which, like any other POV, is not above honest criticism.
— If anyone can outline actual examples of this so called "settler nationalist erasure" of American Indian aspects of history articles please cite the example(s), and more over, try to equate this as some sort of overall conspiracy here at WP. Please don't confuse removal of any content for lack of citations, original research, acutely slanted POV's, etc, with "erasure", which any material may be subject to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Last, if Keeler and others are able to point out "erasure" and other such affairs here at WP, why have they not logged on to Wikipedia and added any material themselves? It can't be removed if it is cited by reliable sources. Overall all we have here are complaints, no actual editing -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to be Native, but as a descendant of a Cherokee man who had his land stolen by whites and was marched on the Trail of Tears but managed to escape, I certainly believe that the government of the United States and white settlers often engaged in what amounts to genocide. I read every word of Keeler's essay except the notes with their infernal one-way links, and regard it as a fraudulent, ferocious hit-piece written to advance the career of its author, completely unscientific, and a very shoddy bit of pseudo-scholarship. He ignores the vast amount of work successfully done by Natives and African Americans on this website to correct the historical record depicted here, and concentrates on the injustices suffered by particular Native editors. He writes as if Natives have no agency and cannot defend themselves, and must depend on the Great White Savior to stand up for them. So ironically, he is perpetuating the very settler colonization against which he rails.

Glaringly absent from his attack piece are the actual accomplishments of editors such as ARoseWolf whose talk page input was crucial to the rewriting and decolonization of the Andrew Jackson article in the face of much heated contention, or of Xicanx, a self-identified Xicanx who wrote most of that article, practically all of the excellent Detribalization article among others, and revamped the Tongva article, for example, as well as many others, in scholarly fashion. Finally, I must mention the estimable Hoodoowoman, who has done so much to improve articles about Blacks and Black culture across WP, especially in such contentious articles as Lost Cause of the Confederacy, which prior to her additions] lacked coverage of the work of Blacks generally and Black women particularly to counter the pernicious effects of Lost Cause ideology and propaganda.

May I ask, what has Keeler done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of such issues? After all, anyone can edit it. If he had any guts or sincerity, he would be right here in the trenches. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, as he appears to be too busy trying to enhance his reputation among his students. Carlstak (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your accurate estimation of editing affairs here on Wikipedia. Yes, many (very) unfortunate events happened between settlers and Indians, and from what I have seen, it is well represented by editors of WP history articles. Indeed, there has been exception taken to the often habitual use of the term "genocide" when referring to almost any conflict between settlers and Indians, but at the same time, there is no denying such events occurred at the hand of both settlers and Indians. Again, if there are reliable sources to cite any of the affairs in question, editors are free to edit accordingly. Keeler's article is indeed a hit piece against almost every editor of American history articles and only does a disservice to the credibility of any legitimate complaints that are made. In Wikipedia's defense, anyone can indeed edit, so long as they abide by the policies that apply to all editors, esp in regard to Original Research, SYNTH, acutely biased POV's, and poorly or unsourced statements. WP would not have stood as a leading source of information for all these years if this was not the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write something but I really ran out of desire to halfway through it. Part of being an editor is accepting criticism when it is mentioned. I've received my fair share. How much of it is justified doesn't really matter. I miss Corbie. I miss Indigenous girl. I miss many other editors, even the ones I have clashed with. I am thankful for editors that I have worked with like Netherzone, Yuchitown, and oncamera. I appreciate Carlstak mentioning my name below and I am proud of what we were able to get done on Andrew Jackson. It is not perfect or exactly what I wanted. It is demonstrably better. I'm not going to criticize any viewpoint taken here or off-wiki. --ARose Wolf 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I am waiting to assess the evidence the author has. I have emailed him for a list of the articles from which he says Native American history has been removed or blocked from being added and he has responded, agreeing to send me the list as soon as he pulls it together. I want to know about articles from which reliably sourced, due content about Native American history has been removed or kept out, so that I can fix the articles and evaluate further appropriate action. - Donald Albury 14:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was not made so much over simple criticism, but Keeler's sweeping accusations that the writer has yet to substantiate with actual examples. As of yet, Keeler has failed to provide any actual examples where well sourced material concerning Indians has simply been deleted for no reason. IMO, Keeler has a deep seated contempt for "settler nationalists", a term he uses some 88 times in his essay, and has gone so far as to refer to editors here at WP as "settlers". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have wp:courtesy blanked a section titled "COI issues", written mostly by myself. I don't think I violated policies but the section is causing us stress that probably is not worth it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [1][reply]

I'm not part of this project and I'm off Keeler's radar, but I have followed his timely writings for a year or so. Per the "CorbieVreccan" and "Indigenous girl" discussion above, Keeler explained that both were "brought before Wikipedia publicly for refusing to allow non-Native editors to add colonial viewpoints to Native pages, and their work to protect Indigenous histories on Wikipedia was used against them...in addition to being publicly shamed, both users were harassed off-Wikipedia, made to fear for their safety so that they would not return." In my understanding of his article and previous articles on ToolX and "methodology", Keeler called for revisions to the "content resolution structure" and a "conference with a consortium of universities where experts are asked to audit their subject areas." I'm a bit alarmed by the harassment both editors received, or at least what Keeler claimed they received. Conversely, his comment on these editors "refusing to allow non-Native editors to add colonial viewpoints" warranted clarification, given that he self-identifies or self-identified as "settler-descended" (that doesn't preclude "Native" endonyms, although he also premises arguments on a strict Native/Non-Native dichotomy). He recently presented on how "public knowledge is crafted and controlled on Wikipedia", without an explicit reference to Native Americans and indigenous peoples. I don't mean to make you a proxy, so perhaps I'll wait for the list, but I did want to add my own thoughts. He received criticism from Wikipediocracy users as well, which may be neither surprising nor relevant. Bustamove1 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note on that presentation here:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested: User:Tamzin/Public_response_to_the_editors_of_Settler_Colonial_Studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy has a thread "State-recognized tribes and the Indigenous peoples of North America WikiProject" about this WikiProject and editors are mentioned in there, since that's the apparent standard to share these links on this talkpage. oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not un-interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could lead to WP:canvassing since I see active discussions are being posted there and editors have been blocked in the past for making similar posts on Wikipediocracy. oncamera _{(talk page)} 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure what role anyone thinks I have in First Nation discussions. I don't usually edit First Nation articles or about Indigenous people in Canada. I think I've even said that before so that comment kind of perplexes me. --ARose Wolf 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts coming, I just need to clear my head space and I have chores to complete first. --ARose Wolf 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word, no one has ever claimed that Joy Harjo is not Native American. But glad that folks have a place to vent that isn't here. Yuchitown (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Joy Harjo is a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. I don't understand how anyone actively weighing in on Native issues could not already know that or easily look that up. Yuchitown (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is frustrating that these off-wiki commentators are seemingly so dead-set on assuming the worst about Wikipedia editors that it has apparently impaired their ability to read. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The internet loves conspiracy, outrage, and projection. Unfortunately, Wikipedia appears to be no exception, which saddens me. Yuchitown (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard, Patricia Marroquin Norby

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia Marroquin Norby about how self-identification and sources should be used that might be of interest to editors. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CITIZEN / Native American/First Nations citizenship

There's discussion to remove tribal nations from MOS:CITIZEN at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Native American/First Nations citizenship. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it's Crush Indigenous Sovereignty Week at Wikipedia. How dare we try to assert our existence? Yuchitown (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess our existence is the Great Wrong that must be corrected on Wikipedia since they always bring up WP:RGW when mentioning MOS:CITIZEN. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regina M. Anderson

I have a question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Regina M. Anderson about whether ethnic or race information should be in categories if it's minor. In reading MOS:Ethnicity, ethnic background or race should only be in an article if it is part of a person's notability and of defining importance.

In Anderson's case, the only thing that is relevant to her education, career, and participation in the Harlem Renaissance is that she has African heritage. There's only some specific information about her African heritage. And, it is not relevant that she has partial Jewish, Swedish, Native American, etc. heritage. Please comment there if interested.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You literally answered your own question after posting the guidelines. Being African American is the only part of her ethnicity that is relevant to her career so she doesn't belong in other categories. oncamera _{(talk page)} 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well kind of, my question was about categories. I sorted out that the answer applied to both inclusion in the article and use of categories. That kind of awareness in steps happens some times with my brain. I tried to give you the most up-to-date information in this post. And, I posted here because I thought the Project might have an opinion about leaving out minor heritage info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Native American descent

Is Category:People of Native American descent being used properly? Per Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#Defining:

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. The principle of "defining characteristics" applies to categorizing people, as it does to any other categorization. As the guideline on categorization says:
The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to^[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.

For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. Similarly, celebrities commercializing a fragrance should not be in the perfumers category; not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization.

I see people put into descent categories where their claims are not why they are notable. An example is Category:People of Sioux descent, there are two articles, one is Linus Woods, who is an artist where his Native culture plays a crucial part to his notability, the second is Jas Mann, whose claims of being Native seem to have no notability to his musical career. I'm not saying the claims have to removed from the article, but instead, why is he in that category when it's not a WP:Defining feature? oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These evolved out of necessity because editors kept dumping various celebrities into Native categories over and over. Yuchitown (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless their ethnic backgrounds are relevant to their careers, why would they need to be in a category about their heritage anyway? oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll add that if someone is enrolled citizen, they should be put be into categories about their citizenship etc, even if it's not totally why they are notable since citizen. That's different than the "so-and-so of tribal-nation descent" categories about heritage, and not citizenship. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just evolved from a practical reality of Wikipedia. If you take these away, editors will just add and re-add them of the main Native categories. Whether their heritage is deemed notable or not. Yuchitown (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ in declarative statements, rather than table or list form

Mohawk skywalkers

I've started an article on the Mohawk skywalkers. It needs work, but I was surprised that there wasn't anything on Wikimedia Commons. Photos would be a nice addition, if any can be found in the public domain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this - there is a substantial section in the Kahnawke article here: Kahnawake#Working in New York. Some years ago I saw the independent Indigenous film, on them and the Little Caughnawaga neighborhood in Brooklyn (where a lot of them lived). ~~There should be an article on the 'hood as well.~~ I've created a stub on the Little Caughnawaga neighborhood, please feel free to expand and improve.

Photos added to Mohawk skywalkers.Because some of the bridges were built before 1930, there should be photos out of copyright. I'll see if I can find any, and if not, I'm pretty sure I remember there were historical images used in the film - so maybe a screenshot might work? Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Perhaps the article could also be nominated for "Did you know..."? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore, I had the same thought just this morning. Mohawk skywalkers would make an excellent DYK. It would be of interest to many readers, and would call attention to this important Indigenous history. Please let me know what I can do to help improve the article. One thought I had was to create a gallery of images. Lewis Hine, who shot the 1928 photo of the workers sitting high in the sky on the iron I-beam, did a series of photos of the skywalkers, the Smithsonian owns these photos. I've been trying to access that archive of images online (so far, not successful, but I'm persistant ;-). Thank you again for creating it! Netherzone (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also look for photos and source material from other regions where the skywalkers worked. I did not know it was so widespread, thought it was just Canada & New York. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone I think it may be too late to nominate the article, but I'm not super familiar with how the process works. Sorry. I've been a bit hectic lately. I think the only way we could nominate now would be to get the article to GA or expand 5x? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Bohemian Baltimore there will be other opportunities to collaborate. I've done a few DYKs but found the process labyrinthian and somewhat confusing. But am willing to give it a try again. Years ago I was hoping to bring Pueblo Pottery to GA, but again found the process/procedure intimidating so I gave up. On another note, I have been meaning to thank you for all the hard work you've done on categorization, and of course your many article creations. Netherzone (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit ok?

[3]. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIGENOUS

Apparently the establish consensus has been overturned [4]. Sure to be a concise and calm discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's many style guides that say it should be capitalized, where are the published sources saying it's not? oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really something that most readers will even notice. Most editors that are interested in indigenous topics will capitalize the word anyways simply based on the knowledge they have of the topic. ... We'll only get a few here and there that will consider it racist not realizing it's just a grammatical preference. Moxy🍁 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of retaliation against Native topics lately and the guidelines meant to help newbies in the area write better articles. oncamera _{(talk page)} 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be capitalizing no matter what. They can block me. That discussion was full of uncivil mocking of fellow editors by those that shouldn't ever touch an article about Indigenous topics let alone be commenting about it as shown in recent comments made and pointed out. --ARose Wolf 11:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples is appalling (and folks have lots of free time on their hands!). I keep peeking over about Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and wonder how they handle the need for a base level of familiarity with the subject. Of course we aren't saying "we know best, everyone should trust us" a la WP:EXPERTISE; we all consistently provide citations. But we have the challenge that the broader public has limited knowledge of Indigenous topics coupled with a lack of desire to learn more or listen to Indigenous voices (due to centuries of structural prejudice in Western societies). On physics subjects, I'd imagine there's an expectation that you've at least studied it on the college level (or a heroic autodidact). Yuchitown (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP has hit a new low. Sigh.... Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with medical articles, of course we have MEDRS for that. Wish we had INDRS or something like it which clearly defined what is a good reliable source for Native American or Indigenous identity and how best to define/label. We don't have that and it has caused a major rift, imo, within the Wikipedia editing community and between Wikipedia and Indigenous communities. The last few discussions have been appalling. At least with the off-wiki discussions, I finally read them, I can say the criticism, though some of it misguided, is at least coming from a place of trying to, in their minds, respect a person Indigenous identity. I can't say that about some of the discussions on wiki that I've been a part of or watched recently. It is absolutely a new low and disheartening that I am supposed to work with these people that don't respect for other humans. Wikipedia does have rules but those rules are not supposed to hurt the encyclopedia and this clearly does hurt the effectiveness of Wikipedia to relate to its readers. --ARose Wolf 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf, see message below. Please help us to include more Indigenous news sources from Alaska! Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I disagree with Moxy. I think this is a serious issue and it will become more serious when we start seeing good faith edits reverted where Indigenous is capitalized in articles. This isn't an effort to remove errant language from a guideline or essay. This an effort to force a particular POV on editors who know better by those that simply don't care about the cause and effects of their decisions. --ARose Wolf 14:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also being removed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. I would suggest someone create a RFC at the MOS or WP:INDIGENOUS with the style guides so consensus can be established once and for all. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations updated their Editorial Manual to include that "Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to cultures, communities, lands, languages, etc., of Indigenous Peoples, e.g.: Indigenous culture in Ecuador, Indigenous languages are dying out. If referring to flora or fauna, lower case should be used." --ARose Wolf 17:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully when it's closed who ever does it we'll see the disconnect between the random links vs the style guides. Basically we have someone saying look at the Chicago manual style or United Nation they doesn't capitalize in everyday usage....... Yeah both places have a style guides that say you should. Odd that some simply reject academic protocols like...."Capitalization". University of Waterloo. February 24, 2016. Retrieved June 13, 2024.Moxy🍁 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than odd, it's verging on disruptive. Probably schoolmarmish types nursing a pet peeve. Carlstak (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rejection of academic publications is one reason we have a problem with Wikipedia:Expert retention. Moxy🍁 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Example in MOS:RACECAPS section?. Moxy🍁 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indigenous newspapers in North America

Here's some good news! Over the past week or so, @Yuchitown and I have been crafting a new list article List of Indigenous newspapers in North America that will be helpful in providing sources from the various Tribes/Nations. It also includes tribal newsletters. It's not quite "finished" and may never be, however it is comprehensive enough that I feel comfortable posting this here (a link is also on the IPNA main page).

Please feel free to continue to improve and expand it. Within the next few days I hope to create a List of Indigenous magazines and academic journals in North America. It would also be excellent to have a List of Indigenous Media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America.

Thank you in advance for helping out with this project!

BTW, it will be interesting to see whether Indigenous is capitalized or whether it is not in these scores of sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have just created two userspace drafts User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous magazines and academic journals in North America and User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America. (The titles of which of course can change if these aren't quite right). Please contribute to these drafts! Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to read the Juneau Empire. I just scanned it for articles and they capitalize Indigenous (i.e. Indigenous leader, man, woman, people). Not exactly an Indigenous owned newspaper but one that recognizes the importance of Alaska Native's to Alaska, both current and past. Then there is Alaska Native News. News for Alaska Native's which you already have listed but is really good source. Southcentral Foundation does a free publication of Native news in and around Anchorage. I'll continue to look for more media sources. --ARose Wolf 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tlingit & HaIda Central Council releases a quarterly newsletter titled Tribal News. --ARose Wolf 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added Tribal News and Anchorage Native News to the list article. Will look into the other two you mention. Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some to the User:Netherzone/List of Indigenous media, TV, radio and podcasts in North America. I added the National Film Board because while they are not predominately by or targeting Indigenous peoples there are quite a few works by them that apply.

How about things like Up Here (magazine) or News/North? The first is a glossy magazine that is not really aimed at Indigenous peoples but does sometimes contain articles by Indigenous peoples. By the way there is the Canadian Indigenous Media Index. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these contributions and for pointing to the Canadian Indigenous Media Index. Yes to Up Here and News/North. All contributions and improvements are welcome! Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that it might be best to keep the lists to individual countries otherwise it could get very long. See List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Since I live in the US, I'll try to remain focused on that country. I'm glad you brought this up as it crossed my mind when working on the List of Indigenous newspapers in North America and wondered if it should be broken up into US and Canada and Mexico; however, you have called attention to the fact that the matter is larger than that. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Brulé

Requesting move of Brulé to Sicangu at Talk:Brulé#Requested_move_14_June_2024. Yuchitown (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have just moved it, it's not controversial oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, however, so many folks jump in and unilaterally make moves (see below), that I didn't want to do the same. Yuchitown (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion at Atakapa

See: Talk:Atakapa#Requested_move_17_June_2024 Yuchitown (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Residential schools at RSN (again!)

There is a thread at RSN Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons that may be of interest to editors here. Elinruby (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Dorchester Review at RSN

There is currently an RfC at RSN on the reliability of the The Dorchester Review. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at WP:NORN

There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse scraps US filming plans after outcry from Native American Groups

[5] Doug Weller talk 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that the "kill the Indian, save the man" ideology still exists

They took part in Apache ceremonies. Their schools expelled them for satanic activities Doug Weller talk 14:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately, although it's surprising that a Lutheran school did this. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that, even today, it continues. The genocide of cultural beliefs and practices thrives on. And like cowards they refuse to respond. What are they afraid of? If this is something you believe with such passion as to expel children from school over then surely you could answer some questions about it and explain your position while accepting criticism for it. --ARose Wolf 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Apache Indian

Related WikiProjects

Do we need two separate projects: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Perhaps these would be better merged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Indigenous people of the Americas refers to Indigenous communities in South and Central America. Indigenous peoples of North America refers to Indigenous communities in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It would be like saying Aboriginal people of Australia is the same as Indigenous people of Asia. They uniquely different regions. --ARose Wolf 12:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Without saying South or Central, "Americas" seems to imply all of the Americas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right but the very first goal of the wiki-project states "Specifically, this Wikipedia can improve and create new articles in areas not covered by the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or WikiProject Mesoamerica." --ARose Wolf 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct one thing I said. I included Central America in Indigenous people of the Americas but it is actually under the umbrella of Indigenous peoples of North America. IpNA, includes Greenlandic Inuit, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Native Americans in the United States, Indigenous peoples of Mexico, Indigenous peoples of Central America, and Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. In turn IpNA is a sister project of IpA. --ARose Wolf 14:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. North America means North America. Some articles, like Classification of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, includes all the Americas so the broader WikiProject covering both Americas makes sense. Yuchitown (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion on this talk page back in 2011, and in the formal proposal for the new project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Indigenous peoples of the Americas) some editors felt that the North American project focused primarily on the United States and Canada, and that a broader project was needed for the areas south of the U.S., including Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. I still don't see much about Central America or the Caribbean in the North American project, but then I don't see much about them in the wider project. Donald Albury 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikiproject is for North America, which starts at Panama and goes north to Greenland. South America is neglected but would also be neglected if it was merged into this WikiProject. I'm sorry the broader areas are neglected and contribute occasionally. Seems like many WikiProjects are less active in recent years. Yuchitown (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas should be changed to include the name "South America" since this one includes North America. oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would solve some confusion. Moxy🍁 22:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Yuchitown (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a suggestion at that project's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this change being beneficial and resolve any confusion. --ARose Wolf 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sems an easy but important thing to do. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging is the way to go here. This is quite an active project, but WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and for that matter WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia is struggling. Unifying them into a new WikiProject Indigenous peoples would bring more editor attention to the overarching topic and reduce duplicated work on things like banner tagging. And if there's a desire to retain more geographically-focused collaborations, they can always become task forces (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples/North America. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples is a global concept and includes Indigenous peoples from Asia, Oceania, Africa, and Europe. Honestly most of the those are outside most of our spheres of knowledge and will likely guarantee they are neglected. Indigenous peoples of South America are already fairly neglected (although I try to edit those articles occasionally). Yuchitown (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to broaden the group in order to bring in people that do have that knowledge. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not recruit new editors to those less active projects? Over the years I've received a number of invitations to join Wikiprojects, and have always appreciated that outreach. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it won't work; see below. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPAustralia and WP:IPAmericas show up on your link below as "Active" not "struggling". Has anyone tried to contact the participants of those projects to reinvigorate them? Or checked to see if articles relevant to those areas have been created, but the WikiProject template simply has not been added to the talk pages of those new articles? Also, editors may be actively participating without necessarily using the WProject talk page or modifying the Project page. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The activity statuses haven't been kept up to date either, unfortunately. I recently reviewed all the history and society-related wikiprojects and found that about three quarters of the projects listed as active were not. If that holds for the other categories, the true statistic is probably more like 80% of wikiprojects are inactive. Sadly WikiProjects as a concept have been in decline for many years now.

In any case, I'd call both of these wikiprojects semi-active right now as there is sporadic talk page activity but little else. If there is activity that doesn't leave a trace on any of the WikiProject project pages... well, I'd question whether that's really 'participating' at all. WikiProjects are supposed to be about facilitating and coordinating collaborative editing, not just putting banners on talk pages. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if anyone has tried to contact the participants of those two Projects to reinvigorate them and ask them to document whether or not they are coordinating collaborative editing but just not announcing that they have done so on the Project talk page? Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. But what that would that even look like? FWIW, I've been somewhat active in articles relating to Indigenous peoples in South America for over a decade and don't remember ever hearing a peep from the wikiproject. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red did an excellent job recruiting members and inspiring participation by using the mass-messaging system and in-person and online events. Maybe the foundation could throw some money at those struggling projects to develop in-person edit-a-thons, conferences and similar events focusing on Indigenous people and Indigenous land, water and environmental justice issues, and Indigeneity in general. Just a thot.... Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a talk page lurker, I really don't think a merge or name change is going to solve anything. People contribute where their interests and expertise lie, and that isn't going to magically change through a merger (or anything else). A name change (such as the recommendation above to add "South America" to the WPIpA name) might draw in some with that interest and expertise, but merging a project with a clear name with one that isn't won't have the same impact in my view. Intothat darkness 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to me to merge WP:IPNA nor WP:IPA into an overarching Wikiproject Indigenous peoples - it is too vast and there are way too many cultural, geographic, customary and historical differences to lump all Indigenous people together. As Yuchi says, Indigeneity is a global concept. IPNA is an active project and it could water-down its effectiveness and the work we do here; to my mind, it seems more pro-active to try to recruit editors to the less-active projects like IPAmerica and IPAustralia. Changing the name of IPA to IPSouth America is fine with me, as long as Middle American / Central American countries and Caribbean countries have a home in one or the other project. Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very niche projects like Indigenous peoples of America/Australia have had over a decade to show that they can be viable and it hasn't happened. Looking more broadly, more than half of all wikiprojects are dead – and that's using a very generous definition of activity. I would love it if we could revive all of these small projects, but experience shows that it simply isn't realistic. There's a certain level of participation that's needed for a wikiproject to sustain its activity in the long-term (I've heard 20–100 active editors as a rule of thumb), and recruiting a handful of new participants doesn't get you over that.

That a project on the scale of this one has succeeded is the exception, not the rule, and that's why I think there's an opportunity to use that kernel of activity to give adjacent topics a boost. A WikiProject Indigenous peoples would still be quite niche in the grand scheme of things, considering we have projects like WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Science. But of course, it would only work if the existing participants of the constituent projects are willing to try. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, and maybe this is me being selfish, I don't want to generalize this wiki-projects name any more than it has to be. We already have a block of editors on Wikipedia that are very biased against Indigenous people treating us like third class citizens in discussions and making condescending remarks and mocking our positions on topics very important to us and allied editors. I feel a generalized name gives them reason to attack us and topics related to this wiki-project further. This wiki-project has a very specific, focused and proper name for a group of people with more of a common history, geographically and politically, than they share with other similar groups around the world. --ARose Wolf 15:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with @ARoseWolf. There have been a wave of efforts to silence or disempower or discredit Indigenous voices on Wikipedia in multiple venues.

It is very disheartening. Speaking from a personal perspective, I've never threatened to quit WP editing, however of late it has crossed my mind several times because of this trend. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has very much been weighing on my mind too. I've contemplated the possibility that efforts to increase Indigenous topics on Wikipedia has largely been in vain. The loss of Corbie and Indigenous girl along with other editors who have either lost interest or left the encyclopedia are equally disheartening and places a tremendous load on those that remain to continue their efforts, even on those topics where we didn't necessarily agree on every point. I know I have felt it. It seems you have too. --ARose Wolf 16:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the manner in which this leadership was taken down was, at least to my mind, quite shameful. Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All we can do to fight racism due to ignorance is to continue to provide content with reliable sources to educate our readers and editors. Moxy🍁 23:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diluting this project by combining it with other projects that appear to be at least semi-inactive has in my view the unintended consequence of diminishing what this project has accomplished. Expecting those accomplishments to somehow carry over to other areas where current participants have little interest or expertise isn't realistic. In fact, it has the distinct possibility of being counter-productive. Intothat darkness 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly wasn't my intention in suggesting this. My thoughts were quite the opposite: that the activity of this project could be used as a launchpad for improving our coverage of Indigenous peoples in other parts of the world. As a concrete example, one of the most recent successes of this project seems to have been gaining a consensus on the capitalisation of Indigenous. But this of course is not an issue that is relevant only to North America. As someone relatively active in editing articles relating to Indigenous peoples elsewhere (especially South America), the first I heard of that was when S. America-related articles on my watchlist started getting moved. Which was great to see – but a surprise. So you see both sides of the coin there: on the one hand, the activity of WP IPNA achieved an outcome that benefitted global coverage of Indigenous peoples. On the other, there was a missed opportunity for editors active in other regions—including Indigenous editors—to participate in the discussions and potentially make it easier to gain consensus.

But it's just a suggestion. If the participants of this project don't want to happen, it won't happen. As an alternative, would there be objections here if I proposed merging the two semi-active wikiprojects (on South America and Australia) into a WikiProject Indigenous peoples that did not include North America? – Joe (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely believe your effort is good faith. I don't want that to be misstated. I think gaining the perspective of Indigenous peoples and allied editors from other regions is most beneficial. You should feel free to propose any merge or any other action you feel would benefit Indigenous topics on Wikipedia. --ARose Wolf 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, with all due respect for your work and efforts towards resolving lack of visible participation, it does not make any sense to me to mash-up South America with Australia in one Wikiproject. At all. South America is huge and has millions of Indigenous people and relevant topics and should either be its own WikiProject Indigenous people of South America or be left as part of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. A suggestion re: Australia might be a WikiProject Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and Oceana. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that one of the main reasons we've ended up with hundreds of dead wikiprojects is that there has been a tendency to divide them up based on the potential of the topic rather than the potential of the editor base. If you look at just the topic then yes, of course, Indigenous peoples of South America seems like a massive scope. But the sad reality is that the number of editors actively working on it is in the single digits, at best. There is simply no way to get a group that can sustain the level of participation that you guys have here without up-merging. Broad scopes can and do work. Above you mentioned WP:WOMRED as an example of a highly successful wikiproject (I completely agree): it covers all women that have ever lived, anywhere! – Joe (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for being so blunt, but merging/"up-merging" our highly functional, productive, and collegial and sustainably scaled and managed project into a mega-project to "rescue" less-functional or dysfunctional projects is not a good idea. It runs the risk of disappearing or watering down IPNA. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it's very clear that IPNA does not want to be involved in a merge. No problem. I was responding to your comment about merging the other wikiprojects, which don't have anything to water down. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the current way editors of Native topics are treated on Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't recommend this place for editors to contribute. So I don't see how merging projects is going to fix the way editors and topics related to Indigenous people are treated around here that would encourage new editors to stick around. oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Wikipedia is hostile to Indigenous people and very biased against Native topics and Native communities if recent discussions are any indication. Wikipedia has decided it can choose who is and who is not an authority, not Indigenous communities, on who is an Indigenous person or not. Wikipedia has decided that being an Indigenous person is not worthy of the common respect we afford other human beings, ethnicities, races and with regard to their citizenship in sovereign Native American nations. They have altered the accepted view of what it is to be Indigenous, not just a descendent of Indigenous people. Wikipedia has made it where anyone can claim to be Indigenous and it will be stated as absolute truth here. In just a few series of discussions the voices of Indigenous editors, and allied editors, of this Wikiproject have been swept aside as meaningless. This Wikiproject and editors of Native topics have been mocked, ridiculed, attacked and belittled. They have, more or less, said our contributions are not wanted or necessary. So, like oncamera, I would not recommend this place for editors to contributeat this time. I, myself, am contemplating an indefinite break. --ARose Wolf 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that that in deletion discussions it seems that Indigenous people (enrolled) are held to a higher standard than non-Indigenous Americans or Europeans. And I wonder if the Indigenous press are considered as reliable as non-Ind newspapers/magazines/publications. Perhaps a closer partnership between this project and WP:Countering systemic bias is warranted. Netherzone (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a partnership would probably be beneficial. --ARose Wolf 11:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives Matter and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination don't look to be incredibly active, but Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora is active, and it looks like they are seeing similar challenges with terminology. While especially Native Americans' political issues and status are unique, our different WikiProjects share the challenge of being outnumbered by editors who don't know and don't care about the facts in our subject field. I added all three WikiProjects to my watchlist and Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora/Article alerts on my watchlist. Yuchitown (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done likewise. --ARose Wolf 15:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though Wikipedia's bias against Indigenous people stands. I am appalled at the support this racist agenda received by so many editors here to the point I feel as though I can't edit effectively edit under this agenda. Wikipedia will never receive the support of Indigenous communities so long as it holds these colonial values. I will not actively encourage Indigenous editors to stop editing but I also will not encourage Indigenous editors to edit. That is a personal decision every editor will need to make. I will however warn them that you will come face to face with persistent racist points of view and a staunch wall of support for biased positions against Indigenous people and Indigenous communities within this encyclopedia that our communities have faced.

Subjugation, assimilation and genocide seems to be the hand that is played over and over. It is abhorrent and so persistent that one need not assume good faith on the part of those supporting when they use policy from their own view point to promote a racist agenda and actively mock and ridicule the opposing view points of editors on this Wikiproject. To actually say there are no supporting sources for our opposing views is either reckless naivety or willful ignorance. For those who may find this in the future: Yuchitown, Netherzone, oncamera, myself and others presented very clear, very resounding evidence that much of this progressive world, with regard to media and academia, has changed. The decision to not only dismiss these sources but to actually deny that the preponderance of this evidence exists promotes this colonial view point that Indigenous people should not be respected equally with other races and ethnicities. It is deeply rooted in the foundation of this encyclopedia and this editing community. It may not be a coordinated effort, I would never suggest such, but it is an engrained position and one inherently woven into the fabric of this encyclopedia and many of the people you will come in contact with here. That much has become very evident. One need not read very far in these discussions to see it. --ARose Wolf 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from a note at ARoseWolf's talk page. I want to offer this suggestion. It's a net negative to make good-faith editors working in any topic area feel unwelcome because of their interests or personal backgrounds. Like all of Wikipedia, WikiProjects are volunteer efforts, not compulsory hoops that participating editors should have to jump through. Characterizing WikiProjects as "active" or "inactive" is, frankly, a worthless thing to put effort into. Something with little activity today may become very active tomorrow, if an editor comes along who makes that activity happen. So if editors at any given project want to define it a particular way, let them do it. But don't tell them that they aren't "active enough". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, right on! I agree 100% with your suggestion regarding the problematics of characterizing certain WProjects as "active" or "inactive" and everything you said above. When I first joined WP:WikiProject New Mexico there was very little activity there, however this has changed and at times there has been a lot of activity and collaboration with newer editors. Why should we feel the need to "report" to the powers that be that we have been actively collaborating on various articles? In fact I never knew that was a requirement or considered best practices to be actively accountable for our work and efforts here. Why the pressure to perform on cue? There are waves of activity in human nature, for example academics may slow way down on their participation during the school year, and be more active during breaks from teaching, or vice versa. There are also waves in a person's focus and attention. There have also been "active" members who have had health problems (or other real life issues) or log-on problems and thus are not as active as before. I don't think we should be getting rid of or merging WikiProjects just because editors are not "keeping up with the Jones" of super-active projects. Wikipedia is not a race-to-the-finish line, nor a competition or contest; there are no deadlines - we are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS (capitalized for emphasis, not shouting) and are doing our best as such. I hope the admins and powers-that-be continue to honor and value and appreciate that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia when we find the time in our busy and complicated lives. We should not have to feel like we have to meet quotas for participation for our efforts to count. We should not have to feel like we must work harder, longer, or quicker to make WP better (Faster Pussycat!!!). We are unpaid volunteers not employees of WP where such expectations may be more appropriate. Wikiprojects help to build positive working relationships for editors with common interests; the results - even if at a snails pace -are improvements to the encyclopedia. Personally, I'm beginning to feel more and more like WP is becoming a totally thankless volunteer "job" and my efforts would be more appreciated elsewhere. Netherzone (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not disparaging anyone or any project by saying “they don’t look incredibly active” (did not use the term “inactive”). I was just pointing out that the editors of these project are likely experiencing similar negative experiences that we are experiencing and good be potential allies. Adding them to my watchlist was a way I can potentially support their projects. I wasn’t asking any volunteers to work more. Yuchitown (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuchitown, I'm so sorry if it sounded like I was disparaging you by saying they don't look "active" I was not. I definitely know you were not asking volunteers to work more! Forgive me if it sounded that way!

I was addressing the "powers that be" - meaning functionaries and admins - and such who are concerned that some wikiprojects are not active ("inactive") and therefore not useful to the project at large or need to be rescued.

Sorry, I'm not the best writer (dyslexia, and a tendency to write sentences "inside out"). I wrote this when I was upset about the change from capital "I" to lower case in relation to Indigenous people and with the "no consensus" AfD for Kade Ferris claiming there were not P&G arguments to keep. It seemed like the Indigenous sources were not being counted towards GNG. Recently it has felt like an onslaught against Indigenous topics and editors; I should probably not edit when feeling upset because my prose loses clarity. I'm weary of the way Indigenous editors are treated here and how some Indigenous topics are held to different standards. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. The recent closes and close review have been appalling. The Kade Ferris discussion close made zero sense. Experienced editors should follow Wikipedia protocols. Yuchitown (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that discussion. I've been so focused on the other discussions taking place that I missed this one. All I can do is shake my head. If those sources and that discussion lead to no consensus then that solidifies my position further that the bias against Indigenous subjects, topics and persons is so prevalent on Wikipedia that it is the defacto position in every discussion before any evidence is presented and little can persuade differently when the position is that Indigenous sources carry less weight or are less reliable than other sources. --ARose Wolf 17:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, I hope you know I was not addressing you in my rant about active/inactive - my comments and rhetorical questions were towards "the powers that be", meaning functionaries, admins, closers, etc. I wrote what I wrote while in a state of shock and dismay and I wasn't being clear or cool-headed. Gonna go dunk my head in some cold water now. :) Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, understood and no worries. And thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all Native editors in this project: please don't leave. We need your voices here to counter the colonialist mentality and the racists. Please keep calling out what you see; it's important to have your presence here so that conscious editors can get the message. Thanks for all that you do. We, and Wikipedia, need you. Carlstak (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you, Carlstak. We did good on Andrew Jackson. But it was such a fight to even get what we did get. And I'm finding that with any article and every discussion about Indigenous and Native American related topics. It becomes such a struggle to fight against these entrenched racist view points. How can I be expected to participate in a project under principles that I must agree with and support that does not recognize our Indigenous identity with the same respect other races and ethnicities are given. How am I expected to collegially edit where my views are openly mocked in discussions by fellow editors. It doesn't matter what evidence is brought forward when others can simply dismiss those sources as nonreliable without any discussion about the sources themselves. When editors can openly mock others and nothing is done about it. When they can present racist views and those views are supported by the community and forced upon us as a condition to edit. I will not participate in that kind of project. When they are rewarded for their expressed views, celebrated even. In those discussions, my identity as an Indigenous person was reduced to no more than a simple adjective. Besides I would inevitably be blocked at some point for edit warring when my edits of "indigenous" to "Indigenous" were reverted anyway. Why put myself through that? I will let Wikipedia and those editors cling to their racist views and colonial values. I will be able to hopefully come back to the table when I and the identity of fellow Indigenous editors is respected among other races and ethnicities. --ARose Wolf 12:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With academic journals selling their vast libraries to Microsoft AI and other AI systems gathering academic data, Wikipedia will be left behind as a resource. And many of those academic journals use the updated terminology that we are using in our arguments, so this behavior by other editors to remain outdated or ignorant in their writing/thinking is detrimental to the survival of this site anyway. The whole site has slowly become inactive over the years and even now when I search with Google, AI will give me enough information that I don't really need to click an article. This is just the beginning and end of how people access information, Wikipedia is at the cusp of becoming outdated because of human behaviors holding it back. oncamera _{(talk page)} 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI will give me enough information that I don't really need to click an article The vast majority of information Microsoft Copilot gives me is beautifully written, but 100% wrong. Of course, that might not be true in 20 years, but at the moment, you should not rely on any of these services. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia either and will not. --ARose Wolf 23:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I make a habit of trying to check the sources when I have time. My understanding, based on the research I've read here and there, is Wikipedia is more reliable than the majority of comparable sources. I'm not certain our concerns are the same (but they might be), but where I find a lot of outstanding issues are in US articles about people or ideas on the left-right spectrum. There's also a kind of silent censorship, in that certain topics don't even exist, which I find extremely odd. I will give you the most recent example I identified just yesterday! Take a look at our article on the 1796 United States presidential election. It's missing the most highly controversial topic, namely the well-recorded dispute between the two campaigns that had them levying insults of the highest order against each other. Why is this important? Well, since 2016 or so, political campaigning has been said to lack all decorum, ethics, and respect for the opposing parties. It turns out, there are historians who have been telling us, wait, this is not new, it's happened before, please see the 1796 election for details. And when you look into it, lo and behold, yeppers, it was quite a shocker. But, nothing on Wikipedia! Looking at the talk page of the article, a user by the name of "Kooky" brought to this attention of the community...in 2015! Nothing was ever done. I just saw their query for the first time and posted a reply saying we should cover it. More details here. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I asked Microsoft Copilot to tell me about the 1796 United States presidential election. Here is their response: "Looks like I can’t respond to this topic". Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a good starting point for sources and in some cases gives a decent general overview, but I agree you can't really trust what's in many articles. I've been involved in a few reviews resulting from AfDs, and the articles in question were found to have fabricated entire quotes from purported sources (which in some cases didn't even mention the subject of the article). And no one really seemed to care. Intothat darkness 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rely on Wikipedia on Indigenous topics and don't relay on 99% of newspapers either! Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best advice ever given. --ARose Wolf 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kechewaishke

Kechewaishke has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Oral tradition

Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting feedback for proposed Hard Rock Cafe changes

Hello! Matthew here on behalf of Seminole Hard Rock Support Services at Hard Rock International. I'm here on Wikipedia to suggest updates and other improvements to pages about the company and executive leadership.

I am concerned about the current state of the Hard Rock Cafe article, which should be focused on the restaurant chain but has a significant amount of information about the parent company as well as the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Hard Rock's hotel and casino properties. I've proposed some structural changes here, in an attempt to separate text about the restaurant chain from text about the company's hotels and casinos. Some of the changes are specifically related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida, so I am hoping some members of this WikiProject can take a look. Thanks, MattHardRockInt (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations (North American Indian) n.o.s.

Why there are so many First Nations (North American Indian) n.o.s. - 632 340 people. Why so many people does not no their tribes or they are fake indians? Indigenous peoples in Canada#Peoples Kaiyr (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps their particular First Nations are not listed as an option on the census. Then many people were removed from their communities and families in the 60s scoop. Then some people might be mistakenly believing family lore. Yuchitown (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic representations of First Nations and Native Americans in articles

In many articles covering Indigenous peoples, there are paintings that are used as representations of the artist's interpretations of the subject or person depicted. Paintings in particular from the 19th and early 20th centuries present a romanticized, dramatized or otherwise fictional representation. Some of these paintings are highly realistic in technique but do not represent "reality" in the same manner that some photographs do. Today I was "fooled" by what looked like a photograph in the article First Nations in Canada but the image turned out to be a detail of a painting from 1857 by Eastman Johnson. Other examples would be paintings by Thomas Moran, Albert Bierstadt and many others that fueled the Manifest Destiny agenda.

I would like to start a conversation here whether the community thinks the captions of these images, when used in articles about Indigenous people of North America, should specifically state that they are paintings or painted representations of the people, events or environments they depict. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same issues apply to photographs. Photographers of the 19th and early 20th century frequently posed the subjects of their photographs and supplied costumes and props (this was true for photos of all persons, not just Indigenous persons). There is a real problem in trying to convey how far an image strays from we think was the reality at the time in a caption of very limited length. Donald Albury 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such paintings or photos are used at all, the captions should absolutely state they might not be accurate representations. Carlstak (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick responses, and hope to hear from other editors as well! Yes, I agree this applies to photography also, and am familiar with the staging of photographs by the likes of Edward Curtis and others. I thought we could take the discussion in stages, beginning with paintings (esp. since being recently fooled by one.) But all forms of artistic representation would apply to the same issue, including sculptures. Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the caption say "Painting by so and so, representing ______"? oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, @Oncamera, and changed a few of the captions in the article mentioned above. But before I changed any others, I wanted to get a sense of the community's thoughts. Thank you for yours! Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I wish we had more images of living Native peoples. Yuchitown (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also things like this:[6] which is a computer rendering. The file includes bogus geographic coordinates where the "camera" was located when it "took" the "photo". I saw it on the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article, the caption makes no mention of it being a computer rendering. With the advent of AI and a whole generation growing up with AI, I think it is imperative to change the captions as well as the info on Commons. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that is a picture of a diorama in a museum/cultural center?? That's what it looks like to me. Especially given the panel on the left. PersusjCP (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the keen observation, @PersusjCP, I think you are right that it's a diorama. In looking at the metadata, the image was taken by a camera. I'll modify the caption to state that it is a "representation", and also add that to the file on Commons. Netherzone (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion that may be of interest to this project

There is a discussion on this talk page: Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia#Native perspectives that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Please consider joining the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

User:ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ is a new editor and based on their user page and editing, interested in contributing to articles in this topic area. They have submitted a couple drafts that have been declined. I did leave them a Welcome message and a note about this WikiProject but it might be good for someone familiar with the topics to reach out. S0091 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slahal

Slahal just got a massive dump of new information, mostly in quotes from one source. I don't want to revert it, but could anybody go through and quickly organize it better than I did, and see if anything should be merged from the old article?? PersusjCP (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrapped up what I could do for the moment. For the second pass of edits I'll have to take time to comb through the sources to assess accuracy and assign page numbers. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! PersusjCP (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion that may be of interest to this project

There is a discussion on this talk page: Talk:List of Indigenous peoples#Controversial move that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Please consider joining the discussion. - Donald Albury 13:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we have an influx of editors that aren't familiar with basic terms.. why are editors all of a sudden all over the place interested in things they have no schooling in. The fact that we have to educate editors on the basics is odd... example here. I think we have editors that just run around from RFC to RFC. Moxy🍁 23:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] rative statements, rather than table or list form

[1]