Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Peer review requested

I have requested a peer review of Menominee Tribe v. United States, the page to review it is here. Any help would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination on Meta

Good day, I started a Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination on Meta (it is possible to change its name and extend his scope to North America if there is a desire) to coordinate the efforts of different small wikis in aboriginal languages. You are welcome to join and to bring your suggestions. Thanks you, Welalin, Amqui (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a similar coordination page for the US? Could we extend this existing coordination page, and pick up the US languages in Wikipedia and Incubator, adding a link to the Mexico page, which is in Spanish? Not spotting a single page that gives access to all US indigenous languages. Djembayz (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Update on Native American languages in Incubator

Does anyone know how to include the template for article count here? Can anyone figure out how to do interwiki language links to Incubator? Djembayz (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A user page for attention

I came across User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans which seems to have been up since Nov. 2010. It looks like it has only been worked on by single purpose accounts (SPAs) and IPs. Since I'm pretty sure it is almost completely factually wrong and pushing a POV, I was wondering if anyone has any interest in looking into it. I know at least one person thought that it was the actual WP page on the Yamassee rather than a user page. On second thought, I think I might just blank the page for the moment and message the user. Here is diff of the last version. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. -- Donald Albury 13:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Donald. I found an appropriate template for it concerning abandoned drafts. I think that's being kind since the author apparently started the user subpage after people objected to POV pushing on the main article. It looks more to me like the user was trying to circumvent consensus rather than improve the article. Just my opinion. I think I'll bring it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and see what others think. Thanks for watchlisting it. I'll post here when I nominate it for deletion in case anyone wants to give their opinion and input on the page. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans if you are interested. Pigman☿/talk 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Defining Native American identity

If anyone feels like sharing their perspective on what criteria should be used to define someone as Native American, please feel free to comment on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States. Mvto, -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh dear, not the Elizabeth Warren issue again? Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:) -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ancient Pueblo Peoples

Anyone care to comment on the third attempt to change the names of Ancient Pueblo Peoples back to Anasazi? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ramapough Mountain Indians

Anyone with the time and energy to take a look at this article for OR and NPOV issues? I can understand a member of the tribe wanting to make this accurate, but they are so sure that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them wrong that it may have skewed the article. And the fact that they just added a suggestion about the name's origin based solely on the existence of a potato that they may have raised, with no sources actually making the suggestion[1] shows that even have a number of years of editing and concerns being expressed about original research they still don't understand or accept the concept. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up. The main editor of this article, User:Ramapoughnative and I want to rewrite the article together, any help or advice would be welcome. Thanks.
And can it be added to [2]? Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming kafuffel

See Talk:Native American gaming. Probably time to get everyone to weigh in over there. Montanabw(talk) 17:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fellows v. Blacksmith peer review

I have requested a peer review of Fellows v. Blacksmith, an 1857 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning indigenous land rights in upstate New York. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court decision in which an indigenous party prevailed. Input from members of this project would be appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive1. Savidan 03:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Ex parte Crow Dog

A peer review has been requested for Ex parte Crow Dog here. Any help on getting the article ready for a FAC review would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of metals such as bronze

I am trying to determine if the indigenous peoples of NA used compound metals in their art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.103.123 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Before or after European contact? Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Check out Metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I am very late to this meetup, but have you flipped through NativeTech? http://nativetech.org/ Did you perhaps have a smaller geographic location, specific metals in mind? I just want to be sure to get the right answer to your query. :) Abesottedphoenix (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone get to Wikimania?

I don't know if anyone else came out to Wikimania DC, but it was awesome to sit in the audience at the opening session and hear perpetuation of Indigenous Languages issue forth from someone else's mouth :) Warm welcome here! Niyayo! Abesottedphoenix (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Defining indigenous American identity

June was an insane month for editors who have never touched an indigenous American article to show up and demand the articles be renamed, the criteria for inclusion be changed, certain terminology to suppressed, etc., while furnishing few or no published sources and admitting little to no knowledge with Native issues. I'm hoping the fallout over Elizabeth Warren's ancestry claims is dying down. Although I know anyone is allowed to edit any Wikipedia article, I'm fascinated by the fact that people will freely admit they have no familiarity with Native people but still demand that their opinions supersede those of all other editors.

Anyway, we need (yet another) intelligent, informed discussion about determining Native/indigenous identity with accessible citations, to update and bring some consistency to articles. The gulf between what the general public on the internet sees as criteria for Native identity (i.e. anyone famous who has ever self-identified as Native) as opposed to the criteria for Native identity in Indian Country (i.e. everyone has to prove their Indianness on an ongoing basis - family, community, clan/tribal town, tribal enrollment, CDIB, residency, religion, language, etc.).

Most of these arguments center in the United States (Latin America is overwhelming of mestizo decent so it's less contested). For some reason, tribal enrollment in a state or federally recognized tribe seems like an insurmountable obstacle for the non-involved public, and little regard is paid to tribes themselves; however, I believe the reality on the ground is that without any tribal affiliation (formal or informal), one is not Native. Even Native people I've know who were adopted out and do not know their ancestry find a tribal community in which they get adopted (formally or informally).

There are very genuine cases of Native people not being able to formally enroll in a tribe. For instance, Great Lakes tribes don't have open enrollment at all times. One prominent writer and educator I know has not been able to enroll in her tribe because the rolls have remained closed, so her parents and siblings are all enrolled but she isn't. So while formal tribal enrollment is a good baseline criteria for Native identity, some flexibility should be established. (Personally I just use "of [tribe-in-question] descent" for anyone's who's not enrolled).

The barest minimal criterion should be having ancestors who are indigenous to the Americas (with relevant citations).

Here are some of the articles dealing with or affected by the question of Native identity (some of the smaller, focuses don't really have problems). I don't believe uniform criteria can be implemented for every single one, but at least we can bolster discussion with good citations.

Apologies for being so verbose. Eager to hear peoples' perspectives and suggestions. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

  • I think this is a very good initiative. Nonetheless, I think you are wrong that it is less contested in Latin America. It is probably evenmore contentious since there are no such thing as "tribes" with membership criteria. On many articles people insert celebrities as members of different Latin American Indigenous group based entirely on claimed ancestry, but without any evidence of cultural or social affiliation with those communities. Furthermore the bulk of the world's Indigenous Americans live in Latin America not in the US, so I think any attempt at defining criteria should take into account Latin America. It is the US/Canada system that is different, Latin America's various situations represents the "norm" for how Indigenous American identity is defined.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have ideas and sources on how to develop criteria for Latin America, that would be wonderful. I guess since the majority of Latin Americans are mestizo, I just take any claims of indigenous ancestry at face value until given a reason to believe otherwise. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The problem is that in Latin America being Mestizo is generally defined as "not indigenous" and "not white/european", and both mestizo and indigenous (and to an extent "white") is generally defined as a cultural/ethnic category as opposed to a genetic/heritage category as it mostly is in the US. IN many Latin American countries indigenous means living in the country side and speaking an indigenous language. Whereas being "mestizo" generally means not identifying culturally with any particular indigenous community, in spite of having (sometimes recent) ancestors who did. For example Mexico the government defines what it means to be (statistically) indigenous as speaking an indigenous language or living in a household where an indigenous language is spoken. In Brazil being indigenous is often not considered an option in censuses where Indigenous peoples often identify as amarela (yellow). In Guatemala it generally means belonging to a specific ethno-linguistic (by mutual identification) community whether or not one speaks the language. It will be harder to develop criteria for Latin America, and it will probably have to be done at a per country basis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Country by country might be work. Would you care to peruse the individuals listed under the sub-categories of Category:Indigenous people of South America and see if anyone shouldn't be included? Wikipedia-wide should people whose indigenous heritage is contested have it pointed out that it is "contested" on their articles? Folks love to add people to lists, but if their identify is not verifiable, then they probably shouldn't be included (i.e. no "indigenous til proven otherwise" policy). -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
In the United States, to be "Indian" is a legal and political, not a racial status. Color is irrelevant; there are blond haired blue eyed enrolled Indians. And some of them are enrolled where a 1/4 blood quantum is required. I also know people who cannot be enrolled in any tribe in spite of being over 50% Native because they have ancestry from multiple tribes and miss the blood quantum for any single one. (know several folks of mixed white/Blackfeet/Chippewa/Chippewa-Cree ancestry this happens to) You can be 1/4 blood quantum in some tribes and 1/8 or more in others. I am not sure if this legal/political status is also true in Canada. And keep in mind that this project is confined to NORTH America, so should we just stick to the US, Canada, Mexico and Central America at the most; not South America? Could we start with a basic chart that shows each nation's understanding of that an indigenous or native person is, and the population of that nation deemed to fit this definition, maybe along with a legitimate minority view (such as including people from unrecognized tribes or closed enrollment tribes) if there is one? Montanabw(talk) 22:470, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Question #6 of the US Census for 2010 would disagree with you ([3]). Tribal enrollment is another issue and eligibility for federal programs is several other issues. Some require 1/4 descent (but not tribal membership), some require tribal membership but not a specified degree. Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding indigenous South Americans, that conversation could be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, but I think it's more advantageous to have the entire conversation in one place, since apparently they have the same problems as in the US/Canada/Mexico (celebrities assuming a specific indigenous identity without having proof or being actively involved in the tribe they are claiming). -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

There's actually a lot of common ground on Wikipedia regarding indigenous identity. Few to no one advocates a minimum blood-quantum (which is very different than IRL; be half-blood on Pine Ridge or in Navajo Nation). I would propose that tribal enrollment in a state or federally recognized tribes (not unrecognized tribes!) be a baseline for inclusion. The BIA has good material under "Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native?" In articles, it should probably be made explicit how complex Native identity is and the BIA has a good statement: "In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native." US Legal's "Native American Law & Legal Definition is good, and they cite the US Census Bureau's definition: "American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment," which is also on the US Census Bureau's site.

I would propose adopting the US census two-part definition: native ancestry and community attachment. That way, if someone is not enrolled in a tribe, the burden of proof would be determine they are descended from indigenous Americans and have a community attachment. The challenge would be, how to determine/cite Native community recognition of the individual as a Native American and a member of that community, in reliable, published, secondary sources?? For instance, I don't believe Martha Redbone is enrolled but she's definitely accepted by the larger Native community - how to prove this?

Also, getting to the heart of the controversy, how much weight should self-identification carry? Because of the nature of the lists, it's enough for List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry and List of people of African American and Native American admixture because they both explicitly say that they are lists of ancestry (claimed or real) and not tribal membership. But for other articles, where the implication is that the individual is Native American, I don't think self-identification is adequate, especially in light that it's difficult/impossible to find citations saying someone isn't the tribe they are claiming. While we know IRL Tina Turner is not Navajo, I can't find a published source making that statement. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Maybe we can start with the low-hanging fruit: the criteria of what FOR SURE means someone is "in"? i.e. if they are an enrolled tribal member, etc., So if someone self-identifies, we can say, "yes for sure," versus a "yes maybe," or a "no way in hell to tell" standard. Yes, tough to prove a negative and say someone is out. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, community membership in North and South America seem paramount, whether that means enrollment, living with your indigenous community, or speaking your tribal language. I think that's something that the recent Elizabeth Warren debacles have brought to light, that uninvolved, non-native people unfamiliar with the native world seem to not get that to be indigenous in the Americas, you need to belong to an indigenous community. Across-the-board criteria for indigenous identity could include:
  • being descended from indigenous peoples of the Americas / indigenous ancestry
  • belonging to an indigenous community
  • Native community recognition of the individual as indigenous and a member of that community, in reliable, published, secondary sources. The latter will be helpful with historical individuals,
which might be good for the United States. I guess in a nutshell, I am proposing that self-identification is inadequate without community recognition. The challenge is that many non-native people have historically posed a Native people and fooled people, so they are listed in secondary sources as being Native (i.e. Yeffe Kimball, Jimmie Durham, Grey Owl, Jamake Highwater, etc.). -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
People pretty much know what definition I'd go for, so just to repeat it: citizens are Native American, others aren't; for those who self-identify, that's tough luck; every country has citizenship-rules, and even if I'd self-identify as Mongolian, if Mongolia's laws say I'm not, then I'm not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Such a strict criterion creates as many problems as it solves. What about people who lived before the BIA took over? What about places where there is no political recognition of indigenous communities (e.g. Mexico)? What about tribes that have been unjustly denied federal recognition or haven't sought it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Historical cases are different of course, no-one denies Manuelito was Navajo. And there aren't any 17th century pop-stars that want to enhance their career by exoticizing themselves. For everybody else, like I said, tough luck, that's simply the way it is; there are hundreds of peoples on this planet who claim to have been unjustly denied recognition, independence, or whatever else they want. We don't write that Chechnya is an independent country even though that is what it is "rightly and justly" supposed to be; and it is an "unjustly" fact that the United States holds American Indian territory under military occupation to the present day and colonizes the inhabitants. But that's simply the way it is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm going to be contrarian, here. (Disclaimer: My grandmother claimed to have a Cherokee ancestor, but the family genealogists can't prove it. The best they can come up with is that an ancestor's brother married a Choctaw.) I think most of the discussion of "Native American" in this section is too focused on membership on tribal rolls. "Native American" is simply a term (which some think is more politically correct than "Indian" or "American Indian") for the people living in the Americas before the Europeans came, and for their descendants. There are many people today with a mixture of Native American and non-Native American ancestors. Formal tribal/nation membership, at least in the U.S. and Canada, is based in some way on who was living as a member of the tribe at some point, without regard to the percentage of their Native American ancestry (I'm referring to original enrollees here, not current rules for being enrolled). From my viewpoint, tribal rolls are intended to keep whatever communal tribal assets still exist from being diluted, not to identify who "is" Native American. (Such rolls are, in part, a response to the phenomenon of people who have not been recognized as members of a recognized tribe trying to claim some "ancestral" rights. My grandmother, as a little girl more than a century ago, traveled with her family, and other families from their community, by covered wagon from Kentucky to Oklahoma because they had heard a rumor that the Federal government was giving free land to Indians. They were quite disappointed when they got there.) I suspect that there are people who are not eligible for enrollment in any Federally recognized tribe, but who have a higher percentage of Native American ancestry than some enrolled members. As a final note, would you accept identification of Gilmer Bennett, chief of the Talimali Band of Apalachee Indians,[4] as Native American, even though the group has not yet been recognized by Louisiana or the US. I would note that anthropoligists/archaeologists and historians familiar with Florida have been quite happy to recognize the Talimali Band as the descendants of the Apalachee. -- Donald Albury 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There are people living in the U.S. who have more "German blood" in them than some Germans do. All that's irrelevant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We need some flexibility, especially in the case of California, since so many tribes were arbitrarily terminated (though many are gradually regaining their recognition). For instance, no Tongva tribes are recognized. Many of the legitimate traditionalists (including language speakers and best basketweavers) among indigenous Californians are not enrolled. And many of the most prominent Pueblo artists today aren't enrolled (but they do have associate membership) because their mother, not father, is Pueblo, but they still participate in ceremonies and community life. Some even live in their respective pueblos.
My understanding is that John Trudell is not enrolled, but he has a Santee Dakota father and is clearly accepted by the indigenous community (including his own), he could be listed as Santee Dakota-descent (which is more than Ward Churchill, Jimmie Durham, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz have going for them — I believe Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's mother was indigenous, but the fact that she doesn't even know what tribe precludes her from claiming indigenous descent). Joseph Sanchez is one of the Indian Group of Seven but isn't enrolled; however, I've started listing him as mestizo. The author Louis Owens isn't enrolled, but we could start the practice of listing unenrolled people accepted by their communities as being Foo-descent.
Regarding archaeologists and geneticists, personally I believe they prefer working with unrecognized tribes — less friction, less hassle. I still can't believe that the History Channel used the Central Band of Cherokees, utterly fake tribe, to prove that Cherokees are really from Israel. That they found European-Middle Eastern DNA is unsurprising; if they found any actual Native American DNA, I would have been much more surprised.
There's some hornet's nests I've been leery of poking, such as Rolling Thunder (person)-Uyvsdi (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Will the following ideas help? Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. When possible, "Foo" (where Foo is a tribal nation) is preferable to generic "Indian" or "Native."
  2. I agree with Uyvsdi that we do have issues with some of the terminated tribes, where the people clearly are Native, as well as tribes that have been seeking recognition. Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians is an example in Montana - a tribe recognized by the state of Montana as Native even though the Dept of the Interior keeps rejecting their application over and over again. These folks should "count," but only where there is good documentation (as opposed to some Joe Sixpack sort trying to start a "tribe" for some perceived monetary benefit)
  3. Beyond that, perhaps what we might want to start with is to create different standards for BLPs, the more-recently deceased versus the long-deceased:
  1. Obviously, Squanto or Sacajawea were Native American, and we can look to historical record to verify this, but they lived before the reservation era, so different records of them exist, mostly the words of white historians.
  2. The second standard would be people who lived and died within the last 100-150 years, from, just for an example of parameters, Sitting Bull (d. 1890) to Elouise P. Cobell (d. 2011) - people for whom a lot of written documentation of ancestry exists in the historical record, generated by the tribes themselves as well as BIA records.
  3. For BLPs, this seems to be where the rub is. Solution? Perhaps just line out the evidence: We can say "self-identified" until we get better evidence. If we have evidence but not to a tribal enrollment level, (such as the Louis Owens or John Trudell examples) perhaps use of the term/concept of "descendant" is also a VERY good idea, some tribes use term this themselves, particularly for children born to enrolled members but due to the ancestry of the other parent the child does not meet the blood quantum for enrollment with that nation. Then, if there is enrollment, etc., note that. Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is exactly the solution we are looking for - instead of saying "is foo", we should require a documentation for the sense of "foo" that applies. This means that for BLP's "X is Foo" cannot be supported by a source saying "X's great grandfather was part foo", or "X talks fondly about his half-X grandfather", but the statement "X says his grandfather was part foo". We could, I think make a policy that states that we should avoid simple claims of identity but rather describe the substance of the claim i.e. avoid "X is Foo" - but rather "X is an enrlled member of Foo tribe", "X's father was a member of foo tribe", "Foo tribe consider X to be a community member inspite of X's lack of enrollment" etc. In a way it is simiar to the frequent question of "who is a JEw" - the point being that "X is a Jew" can mean many things, and is therefore not a meaningful statement without describing whether x is a Jew by religion, ethnicity, culture, adoption, conversion etc. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Prose-text isn't even the major problem here. Categorization is. There are too many cases where the prose reads "So-and-so is partially of Cherokee ancestry because her great-great-grandmother was" (which is precise and completely acceptable) -- and then some specialist comes along and adds Category:Native American actress. Nope. Those categories are for citizens. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As I see it that problem is easily solvable by making the inclusion critteria for the categories more specific. E.g. on "category:Foo persons" we write on top "this category is for enrolled tribal member of Foo tribe", or by renaming the categories to be more specific "Foo tribal members", "Members of Foo community" etc. Then at least we have solid grounds when we remove those labels, even though people probably will keep adding them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Then I don't really see any problem at all. Prose-text can (and should) explain each particular case in detail. All that's left to do is to add the relevant note to every category and list in question, bring the lists in line with the categories, and we're done. I have occasionally cleaned out categories and will continue to do so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. There do remain problems however in places such as Mexico where there are no really good established definitions for community membership. I also think that we could make an improvement by explicitly writing that it is a requirement that assertions of indigeneity describe the basis for the assertion in prose.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, when there are no laws establishing membership, then I'm assuming there are no governments and there's no equivalent to citizenship. That means somebody's word is what counts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
But somebody who? Somebody with no connection to the community?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. If there really isn't anybody with the accepted authority so give any sort of statement, absolutely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
What citations would confirm community acceptance? Tribal newspapers, books and articles by Native authors, quotes in mainstream media by Native peoples? It's interesting how rare is it to find in print someone saying flat-out that someone is enrolled or not enrolled. For instance, we all know that Tina Turner is not Navajo, but for the life of me I can't find a verifiable, secondary published source saying she isn't Navajo. -20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yeah, but that's not the way it works. The default is that someone is not Navajo, just like it's the default that they haven't fucked someone's underage daughter and have never had cancer. The positive needs proof. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the positive needs evidence to support it; but Uyvsdi is on the right track, as each tribe keeps its own rolls and I know firsthand that getting info if Person X is specifically an enrolled member of the tribe can be a difficult challenge, lists aren't generally online and the tribe can take six months to get back to you even if you send them a court order! If we stick to WP:RS and WP:V for good sources, that is a start and probably the best we can do. I see the categories best listed as "Enrolled members of Foo nation", "Persons of Foo ancestry" and maybe "Self-identified Foo people" But as far as the "citizenship" issue, clearly, if a tribal nation is a recognized tribe in the USA, it has lists. The terminated tribes are a little more problematic, but workable, and the "my great-grandmother" claimants, well, I guess those are a case-by-case basis. But persons who simply claim they are vaguely "Indian," well, needs more than that. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the Tina Turner question, there are published sources saying she is Navajo, for instance the Navajo American Music Awards (the entire page is filled with BS) and no published sources saying she is not. The challenge is how to get Wikipedia policy to be in step with reality. I agree that people should have an actual tribe listed as the barest baseline minimum, as Montanabw points out, with the exception being Métis and Mestizo, and mestizo should probably be used very gingerly. I hope by articulating criteria, we can curtail endless circular discussion with misinformed editors the next time some celebrity/politician/etc claims to be "Cherokee." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Published sources aren't reliable sources; reliable source for Navajo citizenship is the Navajo Nation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Mestizo basically means "not culturally indigenous" in most of Latin America. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Its root is, basically, "mixed" -- as in mixed race. Describes most of the population of Mexico, less soother parts of Latin America. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I know, but the usage is cultural - someone is considered Mestizo if they don't consider themselves to be culturally part of any indigenous group and also cannot claim to be "white". Americans often think that Mestizo is a racial classification because that is how they usually think of indigeneity and heritage, but that is not how the terms are used or defined in Latin America.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a procedure to declare sources unreliable? IPL.org is definitely unreliable. Regarding mestizo, I understand it means you aren't fully indigenous (blood or culture); however, being mestizo is definitely a phenomenon that is aboriginal to Latin America (and Phillipines). It might be okay to have some grey area. I just rewrote the lead paragraph for List of Native American women of the United States, since there was already extensive discussion of inclusion criteria on its talk page. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
WP:RS is the base, for example, imDB is the classic unreliable source on movies. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Which is so ironic, because people use imDB as source for actors' theoretical indigenous heritage. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for the discussion. I think it's good to provide explicit and more consistent criteria throughout the articles. I revised the leads on several indigenous and Native American lists — pointing out that indigenous identity is complex and contested — so far so good. I'm also adding "-descent" to more contemporary non-enrolled individuals in the US and created Category:American writers of Native American descent, since there are so many. This compromise should prove helpful - people's real/imagined indigenous identity is acknowledged but reliable citations are required for them to actually be listed as indigenous. Honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough about non-treaty Indian status among First Nations people in Canada to reword those various lists. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

birthdate of Jim Thorpe

Hello Wikapedia people.

I'm afraid I do not know how to get into a new discussion-I don't even know what a 'filter tag' is! So I am just stating some of a feature Heart And Soul on BBC World Service between 0330-0400 on 30th July 2012. Jim Thorpe's birthdate was given as 1887. This contradicts the May,1888, date on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this? I came across the Jim Thorpe town in Pennsylvania when it was still Mauch Chunk with a pic.of an early cable railroad at a coal mine as seen in the 1870s.

I really hope that Jim Thorpe's spirit can be returned to his native home in Oklahoma so that he can cross to the other side,in peace.

Max Haymes maxhaymes@talktalk.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.135.140 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The standard is WP:V and when in doubt WP:RS. Was the date sourced on-wiki? Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The date is sourced and the article notes that there is no birth certificate. Rmhermen (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Conversations like this should take place on the article's talk page; however, 28 May 1888 is the most commonly given birthdate with mention of the possibility of 1887. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ex parte Crow Dog FAC

Ex parte Crow Dog is undergoing a WP:FAC review, any comments would be welcome here. GregJackP Boomer! 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton FAC

I've nominated Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton for Featured Article. It's about a land claim by two tribes for the majority of the land in Maine. Comments from participants in this project would be welcome here. Savidan 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Otciapofa

A New Page Patroller has asked for help with Otciapofa, currently an unsourced fragment: "Otciapofa are a Muscogee tribe." My Googling leads me to believe that "Otciapofa" and other transliterations are the Muscogee name for Hickory Ground, which is on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Elmore County, Alabama. Can anyone verify this properly and hopefully rewrite the article to better reflect this as a place of importance to both the Muscogee and Alabama? Fences&Windows 23:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now improved by User:Altairisfar, who has also created Hickory Ground (which I've expanded). Fences&Windows 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Westerns

Howdy, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America!
Your editing history indicates that you may be interested in joining the new Westerns WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia's coverage of fictional Wild West articles. If you are interested in participating, you are welcome to sign up at the project page. We hope you will join us!
Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not particularly well worded for non-userpages, but yeah, this WikiProject is now setup and still in the early stages of building its project area before user-participation can really begin to function. Anyone interested, please feel free to join. Note, this project not only covers film and TV, but Western novels, comics, actors, directors and authors, etc who make the fictional-Wild West possible. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Indigenous Languages

Good day, I'd like to invite interested people to join Wikimedia Indigenous Languages, an international body for the coordination and cooperation for projects to develop Wikimedia projects in indigenous languages. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Mohawk people

Category:Canadian Mohawk people, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking around at recent CfD discussions, it's pretty much impossible to eliminate overcategorization. -00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Heads up on expansion of Cornplanter article

Found two recent biographies of Cornplanter not mentioned in our article. Expanded article from web citations; can't determine how to do NPOV without reading the biographies (and rereading Wallace) for context. Someone more familiar with the history here may want to look the article over. Djembayz (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking stick

Anyone, especially those from the Pacific Northwest, care to contribute to this article? A non-native editor appears to be angry that the reality of talking sticks in Northwest Coast tribal life doesn't jibe with the Rainbow Family's use of talking sticks and that NW cultures don't live up to romantic fantasies of Indians. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Do it right, get a stable version done up, then round up some friends, and then gang up on the trolls until they're so pissed the get blocked for 3RR. Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I know that I lost all objectivity when I read "As Aboriginals were largely exterminated by Western authority, material they may have provided never came to be" — yo! you didn't exterminate me and I'm writing your Wikipedia articles. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yeah, I can understand. I mean, if you were African-American and someone said the "n-word" no one would be too surprised if you lost it there. So you are well within your rights to be furious, and your restraint is to be commended. The invisibility/extinction issue drives me nuts too, though I am is a really white "some of my good friends" westerner so I can't have the visceral feelings - but I sure do get why you do! I've run into this sort of weird dismissiveness before, and it really bugs meCurious which is more annoying to you, though -- these people who think Native people are extinct/invisible or the "I'm an Indian because I think I had a great-great-great grandmother who was" sorts. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
People who are interested in their own heritage, however distant, should supported (and they can read up on Wikipedia). My ultimate pet peeve are the people who are tribally enrolled and in positions of power but don't know and do not wish to learn anything about their own cultures. It's embarrassing! -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yeah, I can see that; and I suppose there is also frustration when some folks have power but appear to turn on their own people and even their own interests. (thinking of Ben Nighthorse Campbell becoming a Republican...). Speaking of the preceding individual's father, have you ever really looked at Native American boarding schools? Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a short article but touches on main points, such as "...there have been many documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse occurring at such schools." The Carlisle Indian Industrial School article is much more in depth. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Yeah, I think for an overview, it should be more comprehensive. I'm not the one to do it, but seems some of the overview from the Carlisle piece could go to the overview; I don't have the background to do a big rewrite, but the schools closer to the reservations seem to be where some of the worse abuses occurred. Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed simplification to article assessment

Because we have a large article assessment backlog (1800+ articles), I'd like to propose simplifying the article assessment criteria.

Simplifying assessment would make it possible for more editors to participate. Quality assessment is important, because the content of the offline Wikipedias is based in part on article quality assessment.

Why is assessment for the offline encyclopedia important? Well, here's a little story: We had a lovely presentation at the Berlin 2012 meeting, by a fellow who takes memory sticks with Wikipedia out to little towns in Kenya where there isn't any Internet. The kids love reading Wikipedia on their offline computers, and gosh, wouldn't it be even more fun for them if they could read about the Native Americans? To make this happen, we need to assess our articles for quality ...

(And obviously, offline Wikipedia also works in the places in North America which don't have broadband Internet access.)

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana/Assessment is an example of assessment that is simple and clearcut. We could simplify our article assessment page by modifying these criteria and using them on our own page.

Right now, our assessment page says "Please don't assess any new articles until we have migrated all the early article comments." However, it's 2012, and the comments that still need to be migrated are from 2006 ...

At this point, it would make more sense to focus our efforts on assessing new articles, so that current editors can be involved in the feedback process.

A quick look at the 1900+ suggests that many have been improved past the stub stage, and should be upgraded to Start.

We also need to move articles to a list for B-Class assessment, and call on our more knowledgeable members to help us upgrade assessments to "B-class" for our articles with good topical coverage and accuracy. Djembayz (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IS there any way we can do a mass assessment via bot or something? Anything not assessed being automatically tagged start class and low importance? Then those who care can upgrade what's needed? I'm in no rush to push B-class assessment, as that is near-GA quality, but anything sourced can probably go to C class. I'm wondering if we have an importance scale where we look at how to rank things -- for example, each tribe's main article should automatically be... mid? Dunno. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Start is a bit over-optimistic, from what I'm seeing. Unassessed items would need to default to Stub, which isn't helpful, because they'd be mixed in with the old stubs, creating an even bigger batch to work through for reassessment.
However, there is a handy tool (which I discovered since posting the above) that lets you pick out higher-traffic / unassessed articles. Using the tool, you can start out by assessing the articles which are actually in demand.
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America&namespace=&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=250&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality

Jim Ruel

Hi all, I'm trying to write an article on Ojibwe comedian Jim Ruel, but I'm coming up short in the search for quality secondary sources. I've started User:BDD/Jim Ruel, but it's really just an infobox and some ELs at the moment. Any help would be appreciated! --BDD (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's some stuff on a cursory google search that will pass, particularly for the basics (he's Ojibwa, etc...) Facebook and Twitter won't cut it, news stories will. Here's what three pages of a Google search gave me that might not pass FA, but will get over the basic RS hump:

Keep looking for newspaper articles and such, also. Good luck! Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Bryan v. Itasca County

This was recently promoted to GA and I would like to improve it to FA status. The review page is here. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

United States v. John (1978)

United States v. John (1978) is now a Good Article nominee. Discussion of the nomination has started. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee calendar

Looks like pure fringe stuff. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Raven Hail was one of my father's students; her calendar book is completely based on her own inventions and has nothing to do with any tribes' actual traditions. Not sure how to deal with this on Wikipedia but will fight it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Holler if additional hands needed on deck, Cap'n! Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Cherokee moon ceremonies desperately needs a rewrite. I've ditched a lot of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Tried to help by AfDing it. There might be a decent article to be written about Cherokee calendrics and astronomy, but it would have to start from scratch. No need to keep this while we wait for that to happen.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre

This newly promoted GA and current FA nominee seems to me to be in need of some attention from project members, it is written almost entirely from 18th century French sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues with Anglo-Cherokee War-era Cherokee leaders

I'm from over at WP:MILHIST, and have been working like a dog on Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), an article about an engagement during the A-C war in 1760. In working on that, I've noticed that several of the First Beloved Men are conflated, confused, or just confusing. My proposal would be as follows:

  • Oconostota - Keep as-is, with redirects from "Standing Turkey" and "Stalking Turkey"
  • Kanagatucko - this is pretty clearly supposed to be "Old Hop", who Oliphant (see below) calls "Connecorte". I propose moving the content of this page to Connecorte, but keeping Kanagatucko (See below).
  • Standing Turkey - first, this is a pretty bad article title, given the title was apparently used multiple times in the 18th century. This appears to be Kanagatucko, meaning the one discussed in the Standing Turkey article. I propose the content of this page be moved to Kanagatucko, and this page turned into a disambig page.
  • Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee#Early leaders - this would need to be changed to reflect the above, as would the template on each's page for successor and predecessor leaders.

The reason I'm posting here are because I'm no expert in the Cherokee language, naming conventions, etc. I've read several books on them, and I think Oliphant's Peace and War on the Anglo-Cherokee Frontier, 1756-63 does a masterful job of filling in the oft-ignored Cherokee side to this conflict, and I would propose using Oliphant's spelling (as it is clearer than other versions'). I don't, however, want to step on anyone's toes or unilaterally do something like rearrange these articles without getting input from this project.

Anyways, thank you for your help! I don't mind doing the heavy lifting, just wanted to clear this up. If I'm wrong about any of this, I always enjoy the opportunity to learn something new! Cdtew (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Whenever people try to change tribal names from English versions to indigenous versions, the problem arises that the non-English versions don't have a commonly agreed upon spelling. It looks like both Standing Turkey and Kanagatucko should be merged into Old Hop, while Stalking Turkey/Cunne Shote should redirect to Oconostota. This looks like a useful source. The succession boxes for "beloved man" appears to be some wikipedia editor's projection, not reality. Rulers among Natchez people had clearcut lines of descent but not other SE tribes in the 18th century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    • i would agree, except Oliphant makes it clear that Old Hop and Kanagatucko are two different people. The latter followed the former in having the most clout. From what I understand Cherokee leaders were theoretically equal, but these three were e ones who stood out as being most influential or respected?. Cdtew (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started adding cited aliases and alternative spellings for the individuals listed on Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee#early leaders. There were a number of factual errors on the page and source material is conflicted as well. All these people occupied different roles during times of warfare and chaos, so the idea of some lineal succession is a stretch. Anything that can't be cited should be tossed out. Once the identities are sorted out, then the individual articles can be corrected. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I'm not sure how to ask an administrator to rename an article, but it would be great if Kanagatucko was moved to Old Hop and Standing Turkey was moved to Stalking Turkey. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I'm still convinced Kanagatucko and Old Hop need to both exist, and we could just move the contents (copy/paste) of Kanagatucko to a new Old Hop article. As for Stalking Turkey, there's already a disambig page (directing to either Oconostota or Kanagatucko), and I'd like to stay away from "Turkey" names because the Anglo sources mix them up frequently. Cdtew (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

In addition to my above quandary, I'd like to request comments on my article on Fort Dobbs, the site of an Anglo fort built during the F&I war and the location of a battle between the Cherokee and the English provincial militia of North Carolina. Given the complexity of the Anglo-Cherokee war, I've tried to show that there were causes on both sides for conflict without explaining in too much detail. My goal is to take this to FAC, but I want to make sure this is as balanced as can be, despite being a necessarily Anglo-centric article. Any help would be appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee moon ceremonies

I've moved this page, post-AfD, to Cherokee calendar—not to be confused with the page of the same name recently deleted—but, even if not worthy of deletion, it requires expert attention, and I've marked it as such. Any Cherokee experts here?

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've explained that I don't understand this. There are some well-referenced moon ceremonies. The article Cherokee calendar doesn't discuss these other to say "The Cherokee Moons Ceremonies were the seasonal round of ceremonies practiced by the Cherokee people." It talks about a turtle's back and 13 moons, and gives the Cherokee translations for the 12 months of the Gregorian calendar. I couldn't find any decent references for a real Cherokee calendar. It's not up to Wikipedia to call a cycle of ceremonies a calendar either. If we want an article on Cherokee ceremonies, and I think we may well want such an article, let's create and properly source it. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you Doug. I don't see where this is a "Cherokee calendar" article, versus a ceremony list. GregJackP Boomer! 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am finding some stuff: [5]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I moved the article according to my understanding of its content (or lack thereof). If I am wrong, revert it. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 13:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, that might be useful for moon ceremonies, but he doesn't use the word calendar at all. He does, once, use the phrase "annual ceremonial cycle". I can find that phrase at [6], [7], and [8]. These could be used in an article called Cherokee ceremonies which I think is a safe choice than Cherokee ceremonial cycle which suggests there is one definitive cycle, which isn't the case. But calendar? I still don't think so. I see the choices are Cherokee moon ceremonies or, better yet, Cherokee ceremonies but I'm open to other suggestions of course. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
But the source does give a description of the Cherokee year.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See [9] and the spreadsheet linked from here[10] which I found at List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Yes, the source describes the year but I'm still arguing that the ceremonies and festivals held during a year aren't the same as a calendar. We can't have Cherokee calendar without reliable sources have a substantive discussion of a Cherokee calendar and calling it a calendar. The article dates back to Sept 2005 and is more likely to be the source of the webpage. If I thought it was copyvio I'd delete it. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely need to give this serious WP:RS scrutiny. I haven't the time to deal with this article (enough drama elsewhere) but there are a lot of New Age sites and "I have some Indian blood and I'm a wannabee" sites out there that must not be used for articles about the culture and religion of a living people and Nation. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Again: go ahead and re-move it if I was mistaken; I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC for United States v. Lara

United States v. Lara is a Featured Article candidate. Anyone wishing to comment may do so at the comment page. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Heavy POV spin by Tories on Idle No More

I swore I'd never come back but I couldn't add the POV tag without doing so: please see Clear evidence of Tory talking points on Talk:Idle No More. Indigenous watch on this article needed, also a rewrite as a lot of what I'm reading is an echo of the spin put out by the PMO (Prime Minister's Office).Skookum1 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just keep citing to reliable sources and quoting NPOV, there is similar stuff that happens with the Chinese government interfering on a lot of the Tibetan articles, only even worse. May want to seek ideas amongst those fighting that battle as well, perhaps. They are playing in the biggest leagues and may have useful thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Your comparison to Chinese government meddling online is very apt; must the same is true here; one regular CanWiki person has accused me of nurturing a "giant Tory conspiracy", even though Tory party pamphlets themselves talk about "correcting facts" and waging online campaigns to that effect, and the presence of p.r. operatives in Wikipedia is one of those "can 't out anybody" but it's clear to me it goes on; some of hte IP addresses in the edit history I'll source; been accused of being passive-aggressive but what I said on CANTALK was anything but "passive", rather extremely direct; the insinuation of the 'conspiracy' allegation is also in the regular Straussian toolkit, and Tom Pynchon observed long ago just because you think there's a conspiracy and people claim you're crazy doesn't mean there isn't one; in this case it's a stated campaign, including the "condemn opponnents as being conspiracy theorist line" was actually in an instructional list given to Tory internet supporters; so much of what I see is "talking points" familiar from party apparatchiks and their MSM drones. The Chinese-Tibetan parallel is very close, and make no mistake a lot of the behavoiur of the Harper government (tm) is modelled on Chinese propaganda techniques; especially when defeinding China's new "investment" (ownership) of Canadian resources and apparently also politicians. One of hte people on the page's talkpage said, re me, "this ain't going to end well", well for now the article stinks..
Find the talking points link and then cite it. I always say that NPOV swings BOTH ways! Heh, heh... Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Algonquian personal names

Category:Algonquian personal names has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I started this one

See Template_talk:Infobox_American_Indian_chief#Move.3F - I think it's not appropriate to use the term "chief" generically when Native people have different titles for different leaders and "chief" is the rather condescending catchall term used by whites. So I'm requesting a move. I know this might start a shitstorm, but I really think that "chief" can't be used as the generic, I proposed "indigenous leader" to encompass other nations besides the USA (Including Canadian First Nations), but I'm flexible as to result, so long as it isn't something worse. Would like all who work in this area to comment at the template talk. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of Tongva people

Talk:Tongva_people#Requested_move--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Baby Veronica case article

I just posted an article on the Baby Veronica case at Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. This case involving the Indian Child Welfare Act is set to be heard by the US Supreme Court this year, has been covered extensively by the media, and has created strong emotions on both sides. I expect that there could very well be some attempts by both sides to enter POV material, so if some of you can help watch the article, it would be appreciated. I plan to expand the article, especially after SCOTUS issues their opinion. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 05:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There has started to be an issue with POV editing at this article, by a SPA who is trying to spin this to the white couples perspective. I have reverted the initial efforts and have gone to the talk page. I would appreciate it if someone could look at the article and the edits and give their evaluation. Please look at it from both perspectives. There have been some comments that my edits have been POV also, and while I don't believe that this is the case, it is possible. If you do look at this and find my edits are also POV, then please let me know, either on the article talk page or my talk page, so I can correct any errors. My main concern is that the article be balanced, without going too far on either side. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoo boy. Trotting over to watchlist. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Montanabw. Right now, there are two editors (besides myself), one seems very reasonable, willing to talk things over, the other is not as willing to talk about issues. I'm sure that this will, as it gets closer to when SCOTUS hears oral arguments, become more contentious, so any help in watching it would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Related Cfd

There's a general sense at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_19#Category:Lands_reserved_for_indigenous_peoples that something needs to be done, but little headway, I think, in what that might be. Your input is welcome. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems that my "Indian chief" move is attracting (non-Indian) people who don't like the word "indigenous." The Shi-te never stops. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to a Mi'km person who has done much on this project who doesn;t like the word "indigenous"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope, different problem. Once again "teh wiki" seems to forget that Native people are real and living today -- they want to dump everything into a "lands inhabited" category, forgetting that Native Americans and First Nations people have that legal status governmental thing going on (in the US, reservations...) which is pretty significant. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Native American Language revitalization topic at AfD

"Where Are Your Keys?" is at AfD-- appears that the speakers of endangered Native American languages aren't considered reliable sources on their own languages. (??) Djembayz (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't say "yet more 'Indians are dead except for my great great grandma' stereotyping and racism" over there, can I? We probably do need to discuss sourcing issues one of these days, though, as the best RS for Native issues are often sites that don't look like RS ones and the ones that look RS often have more bullshit in them than a cow barn. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) :-P
I looked at it, at least 7 of the sources are clearly reliable. GregJackP Boomer! 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Will watchlist, and I replied there, I presume you noted the sources stuff there? Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Crazy Horse quote at Little Bighorn

I asked a question about something allegedly said at Little Bighorn at Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn#Hokahey, today is a good day to die!. Please chime in at that page if you think you can answer it. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know this was a general battle cry for the Plains indians. In this book [11] several eyewitnesses report having themselves said it or heard it before the battle.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Maunus is more or less right, but answered there. Also fixed the dab. Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

There is a lively discussion about what it means to be an indigenous people, and how wikipedia should define it, at Talk:Indigenous peoples.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be the reference. It's about as neutral and agreed as one can get. However it may fall short as a "definition". Here's a perspective that says that any one fixed written definition is probably bad [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.166.121 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Daniels v. Canada (2012) and other Metis "Status" cases

Daniels v. Canada is mentioned in Treaty 7, Numbered Treaties and Aboriginal peoples in Canada already. This applies to Metis and non-Status First Nations and effectively added 200,000 off-reserve and non-status, and 400,000 Metis, to the numbers of those considered "Indian" in the Indian Act. Other related Metis cases [13] deserve more coverage and should be inter-linked in a general article on the progress of this recognition.

Daniels was ongoing for a decade as it was the frequent subject of attacks by the government [14] which in 2006 also withdrew the Charter Challenge program which would help fund such cases. Evidence of notability in coverage before [15] and after [16] the ruling. Note the Globe and Mail slant:

If unchallenged, the ruling would force Ottawa to recognize and deal directly with about one million people who were left outside previous definitions of “Indians” who have special rights to negotiate directly with the Crown and qualify for federal benefits.

This wording acknowledges the native recourse to the Crown that was the subject of the Idle No More protests. Notable that the Globe and Mail admits it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.166.121 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues needs update with current issues.

Given recent protests and legal positions taken in Canada, notably by Idle No More and spokespeople Matthew Coon Come and Pam Palmater, and the declaration by Stephen Harper that he intends to practically extinct all recourse to the Crown even under the Numbered Treaties, intent of Canada on signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [17] and what exactly Harper meant by his "apology" for the Canadian Indian residential school system (does he mean he was sorry it wasn't successful in wiping out indigenous language and culture?) is now at issue and is almost certain now to reach this Forum's agenda.

New Zealand was one of the four countries to not endorse the declaration at it’s adoption in 2007. Australia was the first of the four to endorse the declaration in 2008. Very hopeful is also the statement from the USA that it will review its position. Canada has also announced that it will endorse the declaration.
New Zealand’s endorsement is an important step forward, but still came with the following qualifications:
“8. In moving to support the Declaration, New Zealand both affirms those rights and reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system. Those existing frameworks, while they will continue to evolve in accordance with New Zealand’s domestic circumstances, define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the aspirational elements of the Declaration.” [18]
Canada announced similar qualifications for their endorsement. Canadian indigenous peoples’ organizations and human rights organizations have said about these qualifications: ”human rights standards cannot merely condone or sustain the current practices and preferences of states, whether or not those practices and preferences are expressed in domestic law. To limit UN declarations in this way would defeat the purpose of having international standards, which are meant to inspire and guide improved protection for human rights, not simply reinforce the status quo.”:

The Forum is now bound to consider these questions on its agenda. Canada use of weasel language "inspire and guide" rather than "comply" is quite interesting. The articles on the UNDRIP also require more detail on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown relationship as best outlined probably in the Numbered Treaties article (section "modern legal interpretation").

Some polities within Canada such as Quebec (which has its own constitution) signed the UNDRIP without such qualifications. That deserves note in the appropriate articles. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.166.121 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

National Pow Wow photos

Hey. I just uploaded a little over 40 photos to Commons from several National Pow Wows that can be used in articles. They are from the Smithsonian Institute so they are all copyright-free. There are more from the Smithsonian Flickr account that I did not upload just because there were so many. Commons: National Pow Wow Hope this helps. Deflagro (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dance Article Naming Convention

Over at Talk:Straight dance it was brought up that we should capitalize "Dance" in the title. It would be best to keep the naming consistent between articles so we're moving the discussion over here. When I wrote Straight dance and Grass dance, I left it not capitalized to be consistent with Fancy dance, but I also think all the articles should be capitalized. That's what most sources have anyway. Looking at Category:Native_American_dances, most don't have "dance" capitalized in the title, but then capitalize it throughout the article. Thoughts? Deflagro (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the more religious dances are sometimes capitalized, lowercase is more common in texts. Consistently having a lowercase "dance" seems like the best course of action. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Wikipedia MOS prefers "sentence case" in titles when possible. So my take is that your version is correct, though it goes both ways at a powwow, the announcer usually says stuff like "Men's Traditional" but also "Men's Fancy Dance". Over at my "home" project, wikiproject equine, we've had an ongoing nightmare with this in the pony articles (is it a Shetland pony or a Shetland Pony?) A standard rule I've seen is to capitalize if it's an official name and when dropping the second word would reach a ridiculous name (at WPEQ, we have American Quarter Horse, as it is an official name (not American quarter horse) and to avoid confusion with the coin, but Morgan horse, Andalusian horse, Arabian horse, when the only reason we add the word "horse" is for the dab). I'd say stick with sentence case until the Wiki MOS gods decree otherwise. Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Move: Jingle Dress

Just so everyone knows, I proposed a move from Jingle dress to Jingle Dress dance. If anyone would like to weigh in feel free to at the Talk page. Deflagro (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Black Bob article has potential

The Black Bob Band of Shawnee has a great deal of historical source material available, and it has potential to become a B-class article or better. It would be helpful to have some editors familiar with Kansas geography or the history of the Shawnee working on it ... Djembayz (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the project's Alerts page to your Watchlist

In case any editors here are not aware, notifying WikiProjects of categories/articles for deletion is now automated. The Article Alerts page for your WikiProject is updated by bots, based on the projects listed on the nominated article/category's talk page. You need to add the Alerts page to your watchlist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Article alerts. – Fayenatic London 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Si-Te-Cah and alleged red-haired giants

This article about Paiute stories about red-haired giants is a mess, see Talk:Si-Te-Cah where I've provided a number of sources to help fix it. Help wanted! Lovelock Cave needs help also. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

move suggestion re Chilcotin/Chilcotin (region)

please see here.Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

MissPipe1.jpg

file:MissPipe1.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:UtePipe3.jpg

File:UtePipe3.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Costumes_vs._clothing

Someone may want to weigh in at Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Costumes_vs._clothing. I'd especially appreciate hearing from people who are themselves indigenous to North America, I hate seeing these decisions made entirely by outsiders like myself. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I guess it's a matter of English-speakers from outside the US having totally different approaches to terms. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The option here may be "regalia." And thanks for the heads up! Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Generally regalia means something specific to an occasion or office rather than everyday attire. In the anthropological literature the trend is to drop "costume" in favor of "dress".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, the issue is at commons and is pretty much settled. Best to review what was discussed and decided over there so as to not reinvent the wheel. Montanabw(talk) 21:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't edit at the commons.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has now been resolved on Commons. Thanks to anyone who "dropped by". - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This got me looking at other categories on Commons, which are patently absurd, such as Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Native Americans in art by country and Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/04/Category:National costumes of natives in western portrait paintings. Are there just not very many administrators on Wikimedia Commons? I'm not sure how to actually get things done over there. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Penyulap is pretty sharp. PumpkinSky is I think an admin over there too and may be of some help. Montanabw(talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Miigwetch/Wado/Yokoke! -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
BTW for all the crappy, useless images that don't portray actual indigenous peoples, I created Commons:Commons:Category:Stereotypes of indigenous peoples of the Americas and its subcats. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Sweet! Montanabw(talk) 21:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apache Wars

An IP user added a lot of questionable information to the Apache Wars article.

Compare this version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache_Wars&oldid=542445300

to the IP's version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache_Wars&oldid=543511814


I made a few edits removing some POV terminology like "terrorism" and so forth. None of the edits the IP added were cited. It would be nice familiar with the Apache Wars to fact check what he added, and make adjustments where necessary. It may be necessary to remove everything he added though. ScienceApe (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a whack at it - literally - and chopped quite a bit of stuff, which I suspect was a copy and paste anyway. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw. Much appreciated. ScienceApe (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakota Currency

Also Republic of Lakotah where it's been added. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Maria Tallchief

This article is being expanded and updated since the subject's death this week. Someone from this project might like to take a look as well (so it isn't all artsy.) Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Grand Council of the Iroquois League - does it still exist?

Some of our articles write about it in the past tense, others write about it in the present tense. Confederation is in the present tense with a source I can't verify as it is just Jennings, p.94. Iroquois was rewritten yesterday to put it into the present tense, breaking some links along the way.[[19]] (I note that one of the sources now citing a present tense statement uses the past tense.[20] Tadodaho uses the term in the present tense, and although one of its sources[21] seems to be misused, there clearly has been efforts to revive the title and the Council. It would be nice if our articles were consistent about this and made the modern history clear. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we're not reporting on current events, so either tense is fine, but I'd personally use the past tense. Arguably a revival of the Council would be a different entity. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
But Iroquois reads "Today, the seats on the Council are distributed among the Six Nations as follows:". So this is discussing a current event. And please look at [22] which is the set of edits I meant. "the Iroquois Confederacy was the decentralized political and diplomatic" was changed to "the Iroquois Confederacy is the decentralized political and diplomatic". The article says the Iroquois League still exists today but gives no details of its recent history, etc. And is [23] official? It says "The Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs, also know as the Iroquois League Council or Six Nations Confederacy Council, is the central government of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Grand Council of Chiefs is composed of fifty Chiefs representing the Five (and later Six) Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy."
I'm confused and I think our relevant articles need to clarify this issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Usually, such edits are current people with firsthand knowledge who don't know a lot about how to edit wikipedia. I would attempt to independently verify their edits and help get the article updated accordingly. Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Need eyes on Theresa Spence and Hunger strike

There is some POV pushing going on, IPs inserting attacks, and hate speech about Indigenous people. One IP is trying to put Theresa Spence up for AfD. Could use more eyes on these and related articles. Thanks. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's an IP problem, request article protection, and don't hesitate to hit AIV as needed for hate speech, that sort of thing usually can get shut down pretty fast. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I came back into Wikipedia after a long personal boycott because of the POV/Toryhack damage to Idle No More, and also found the Theresa Spence article in damaged/slanderous condition.......got WikiProject Canada watching them now.....good you are too.Skookum1 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know about the WP:AIV bit before; I take it that there's a {{AIV}} template? So hate speech is classed as vandalism? OKSkookum1 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oorang.jpg

file:Oorang.jpg has been nominated for deletion ; the image contains Jim Thorpe. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Circle of Indian Elders & Youth

Removed the notability tag on Traditional Circle of Indian Elders & Youth (see talk page). This could also use more copyediting ... Djembayz (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sinixt issues.......

I've just recused myself from trying to explain why User:Sinkalip's edits have been POV but have given up, after being accused of various agendas and being a paid editor (which I am most certainly not). The issues have to do with obliterating mention of other tribes' territorial claims and names and such; please see User talk:Sinkalip. I'm hoping/asking for other experienced NorthAmNative contributors/editors familiar with the region or with "intertribal" matters and such to monitor Sinixt-related articles, though a review of Sinkalip's user contributions will indicate more articles than just those, from placename articles to major geographic ones like Columbia River. Speaking of that article, it now has the Sinixt name added as well as the Chinookan and Sahaptin ones, names from other tribes along that river I'm also looking for cites for but haven't found any so far.Skookum1 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee section up on Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cherokee Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The new Wikipedia article about Moon-eyed people, a story which every single reliable source without fail attributes to the Cherokee, has been nominated for deletion; wiki-skeptics in England have expressed an original research theory that all these academics are repeated something that is made-up and false. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til, drop this. The AfD is about notability, not whether the story is made up, and the dispute between you and me is over Wikipedia, in its own voice, can call this a legend. You've refused to provide some of your sources telling me I should look for them (which I've tried) which is hardly the way to deal with a dispute. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to drop this, thank you. I believe the afd displays systemic bias resulting in lack of coverage that is easily obtainable off-site and should certainly be here as well, you should drop your original research claims that this is not a bonafide Cherokee legend, because no scholar has ever once made such a reckless claim and the consensus of all scholars ever to write about it is that it is attributable to the Cherokee. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Til, you aren't helping your own position by being so tendentious. It is not "original research" to state that a white person's roadside marker is not a reliable source for what is or is not an authentic legend and whether a particular legend has been correctly interpreted by white culture. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My "own position" is that the article should not be deleted, and that the consensus of all scholars ever to write about it is that it is attributable to the Cherokee. I think I am helping my "own position". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither Til nor I have found a source that attributes it to any report/source etc other than that by Leonard Marbury, who doesn't call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the main discussion is over on the noticeboard, best we don't hijack it over here. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That is gross misrepresentation, since not every source attributes it to Marbury, but every source does attribute directly to the Cherokee. That this was all invented by Marbury and is therefore somehow suspect as a bona fide Cherokee tradition is the exact same original research you've been promoting and are continuing to promote. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Find a source that agrees with your POV or stop promoting this unfounded attack on Cherokee culture. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice try at trying to flip the argument and use what we've been telling you to do against us, Til. You know damn well that the whole burden is on you and that you are not presenting any solid evidence, just ad hominem attacks on anyone else who questions your genius. There is zero evidence that the Cherokee were claiming that Europeans predated them to the area or that white people were there first. There is scant evidence that the thing is a genuine "legend" of the Cherokee people, though it's not impossible - but you have not proved it. Now please go bother people elsewhere, the debate at this page is not the main place where the topic is under discussion. Montanabw(talk) 21:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My, aren't we bossy? Actually I have never argued that the Cherokee claimed Europeans or white people predated them to the area. Assuming good faith perhaps you haven't been following my arguments closely enough, because otherwise that is a major strawman. I am only arguing that there are a vast number of available sources attributing the "Moon eyed people" as a Cherokee story, and you still have zilch sources stating it isn't a Cherokee story, only original rebuttals to the experts who have said plainly it is one. [Note that I have no position on whether these "Moon eyed people" represent some memory of white people, another native tribe, Chinese people, Martians, or if they were just a story like the leprechauns of Ireland. I'm merely saying it's futile to argue against all the hundreds of sources attributing the "moon eyed people" story to the Cherokee.] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You say "bossy" like it's a bad thing... :-P You know it's pretty difficult to prove a negative, you have failed to prove that your authors are "experts" that are recognized as such by the broader Cherokee community and you haven't produced "hundreds" of sources; best I can tell, you've produced a self-published author, a roadside tourism sign and a book published by an alternative publishing house. I'll step back from inferring other motives to you, but your "expert sources," so far, are unimpressive. Montanabw(talk) 04:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to impress you, Boss Man... you ought to trealize when you're making an ass out of yourself. This isn't about me, this is about you and a couple of wikipedians who ought to know better, trying to defeat and contradict every published source that's out there with your original research, and your "all knowing" assessment of the Cherokee experts who know way more about this than you do. In other words, a typical day in wikipedia-land. Now have a nice day, eh. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Til, look in the mirror. With all due respect, the "you and a couple of wikipedians" is, in this case, a pretty strong consensus. (Unanimity is not required for consensus). We keep asking you for quality sources and you keep attacking everyone and produce nothing that isn't fringe, while continuing to try and twist the argument so you criticize others with those things which are your own flaws. Pot. Kettle. And you have a nice day as well. Montanabw(talk) 15:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any consensus that everything ever written by any university on the Moon Eyed People of Cherokee legend is "fringe" just because you don't like it, and because you say so. You are just full of yourself. Perhaps mediation would be the best route since you seem determined to attack and disparage Cherokee traditional culture on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Archive_11&oldid=1140425261"