Talk:Powwow

Disambiguation?
Should this be a disambiguation page with the two topis as Pow-wow (gathering) and Pow-wow (folk magic), and then possibly add Pow-wow (music)?
 * oops, forgot to sign. Gentgeen 07:52, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It depends how much there is to write about Pow-wow as a gathering. If it isn't going to be expanded beyond what it currently is, it could just stay here. If it could be a proper article, then a disambiguation would be good. Angela 07:58, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * well, I could expand it, but I'm a little hesitant because I only know about powwows in California, so don't feel qualified to write the whole article myself.Gentgeen 08:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well that would be a start. It doesn't have to perfect straight away. If you think it has potential to develop into an article, then I'd say go for it. Angela 08:40, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * ok, I'll put this on my to do list. Gentgeen


 * By all means write about pow-wows. Whether we need a separate page may ultimately depend on how much you write.  If you separate the two, it will of course be needful to go back and change the pages that link here to point to the right page.  (What is "pow-wow" as a music genre, anyways?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:35, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Powwow music is the music sung at a Native American powwow. It generally consists of multiple voice and drum accompanyment, in a chanting style.  It is further divided into (generally) two styles, Northern and Southern, and then each has various types of songs to use for particular dances.  At every powwow I've been to the music is performed live by between 2 and 15 drums (the name of the group as well as the instrument), each with between 5 and 20 singers.  Various Native American recordings, including powwow music and native flute, can be purchased from Canyon Records, among others. - keep forgetting to sign Gentgeen 22:06, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC) -


 * I've got a start up on my page, User:Gentgeen/Pow-wow (gathering). Gentgeen 23:15, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cartoon
If i remeber correctly there was a cartoon called Pow-wows about native american bears. - fonzy

ok looked it up and i was wrng it was the paw paws. but tere was a cartoon called: "The Adventures of Pow Wow" and the cartoon character Pow Wow Wolf. - fonzy

Google results
Ok, I've got the article on Pow-wow gatherings ready to go, but I'd like to get some aggrement on how to split the articles. I propose that the Pow-wow page be about the Native American gatherings and a new page Pow-wow (folk magic) be assigned for the folk magic meaning. My reasons are that I get 76K+ hits on Google for Pow-wow Native American and 98K+ hits for Pow-wow Indian, but only ~ 6,600 hits for Pow-wow folk magic. When I searched just for Pow-wow, 15 of the top 20 hits were for Native American gatherings, 2 were for software programs, one was for a water cooler, one for a bicycle tour company, and one for a school newspaper. Any comments? Gentgeen 08:39, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Move the current one to Pow-wow (folk magic), and move User:Gentgeen/Pow-wow (gathering) to Pow-wow. You'll need a sysop to delete the redirect after you move Pow-wow. Do you want me to do that now? Angela

OK, I've moved the old file to Pow-wow (folk magic), and am going figuring out which link needs to go where. If you'd like to delete the redirect, please do so. Thanks. Gentgeen 10:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, done. I've added the disambiguation parts at the bottom of each page too. I don't think a separate disambiguation page is needed unless Pow-wow (folk magic) is written as well, so maybe that can be done in the future. Angela 10:27, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * This might be bad, but I've copied and pasted the discussion from the pow-wow (folk magic) page back here, as all the talk had to do with both pages.


 * Yes, that makes sense. Great work on the article by the way! Angela 10:51, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Arena director
From the Arena director section - "The arena director is responsible for making sure dancers are dancing during the pow-wow and that the drums know what song to sing"

Perhaps it should be ".. and that the drummers know what song to drum" ? --Cfailde 17:14, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)


 * It might seem odd, but the common terminology is that drums sing songs. This is easier to understand if you know that drum refers to the entire group of performers as well as the instrument they are playing.  The performers in a drum group are sometimes called drummers, but more commonly called singers, as the songs they perform are voice accompanied by fairly simple, rythmic drumming.  Perhaps changing drum to drum group would make this more clear in the article. Gentgeen 19:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of any of that but then this subject and the associated terminology is new to me. Note that this may be the case for other readers of this article.  However seeing as this terminology is correct leave it as it is .. I for one am happy to know I live in a world were drums can "sing". --Cfailde 22:07, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Powwow in Iraq
I'm not sure if this should be included somewhere in the article. The U.S. Army organied a powwow in Iraq, with soldiers and marines attending. Many interesting points made by the interviewed personal. Gentgeen 00:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Offensive term?
What's the current cultural acceptance of this term? Like "squaw" and "wampum", this term strikes me as offensive in everyday language. Am I being overly PC?

If you are using it to describe a Pow wow, it's OK. If you are using it to describe anything else, it can be viewed as offensive. Best to err on the side of caution. Squaw on the other hand, is ALWAYS VERY offensive, because its original meaning referred not to the whole woman, but only to a specific body part. So on the offensiveness scale, saying "Wampum" for money or "Pow wow" for a meeting is about a 5, Squaw is a 10+. Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently that is not true. J I P  | Talk 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The academicians can debate which of three meanings they like best, but the issue predates Oprah, and geographers have been working to change place names and remove "squaw" from geographic features for a good decade. Personally, I think it best to show respect to the wishes of the people who consider it offensive, I suggest their understanding of what the word actually means (or what it has come to mean) is due considerable credit, more so than the analysis of a bunch of people who have never set foot on a reservation, and Indian people flat out consider "squaw" VERY VERY VERY offensive, it is in fact demeaning in its use and intent today. (At least out west, where it is one in a collection of assorted racial slurs)  And frankly, whether it originally meant the "v-word" or "young woman" (like in the eyes of the old time explorers there was a difference, given their attitudes toward Indian women in general) or "cornmeal mush," today it is in fact derogatory, it is often used in place of the "c-word" as an insult, it has been used in a derogatory fashion for decades, if not centuries, and it is most certainly NOT a term of respect.  This isn't a "PC thing", it is a term that needs to go out with the "N-Word" and other racially/culturally derogatory terms.


 * If you disagree, feel free to walk into any community of Indian people and use the term. I believe you will be set straight in very short order.


 * And by the way, however, "Native American" IS a "PC" term used in academe to distinguish American Indian people from people from the nation of India. If you actually call folks "Native American" to their face, at least out west, many, especially anyone who themselves has not been to college, will think you are a geek (even if they are too polite to say so).  Most Indian people I know say that they prefer to be identified by their tribal nation, i.e. Blackfeet, Crow, etc., but when speaking of themselves as a group across tribal affiliations, most of the folks I've run into say "Indian people," or "Native people."    Montanabw (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * His comment was not about whether "squaw" is offensive, it was whether it has an obscene origin. And I think the linked page pretty well debunks the idea that it does. The fact that some people are on a personal mission to remove the word from various public uses has nothing to do with the question - it's a simple question of fact. And folk etymologies (as this appears to be, having predictably come to light in the 70's) don't change that. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is for talking about improving the article pow wow, not going on rants about being, or not being, PC. Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, did you notice that the discussion was over last November? (grin).   Montanabw (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was? 173.35.215.215 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see how squaw would be offensive, but the supposed offense from the informal use of "powwow" is just right-wing middle class liberal crap. Yes, you read right - "right wing" - because it establishes an elite pecking order.

Pow Wow
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!--Vercalos 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My idea behind this edit was not advertising. My idea was: Give people outside the USA a chance to meet one another. I live in Neukoelln(Berlin), we have 300.000 citizens from 126 nations, we are really international. But it is hard to find other indian people here. The Pow Wow Restaurant I found sells indian food but the last real indian seen was some years ago. The seller of indian music-discs, I found, wants to sell indian music but he has only five vinyl-discs which he dont sell, cause they are like a souvenir for him. So it is really important to build networks! Please assist and show me a way. TIA --Peter Littmann 06:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Germany

 * Silverland: Indian Arts and Crafts

Berlin
--Peter Littmann 07:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PowwoW: Restaurant - Bar - Catering
 * Indian Music Shop, near Koertestrasse 15

Reads like a school organization's charter
Okay, that's way too brutal. At the very least, everything after the first paragraph should be in a section named "Modern Pow-wow Events". That there's no mention of even a single historical pow-wow, ouch. Or the use to defuse disputes between tribes/nations? Shenme 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not contributing one edit to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New lead image
The new image that was added to the lead of the article is a bit out of place. The dancer appears to me to be an Aztec dancer. From what I've experienced, Aztecas don't participate during the events described in this article, but instead perform either before the pow-wow actually starts, or during an intermission or meal break. Their dance music is very different than "standard" pow-wow music, with no vocals and a more complicated drum beat. While a section could be added for the Aztecas and other events that sometimes happen at a pow-wow, I think it's not a good choice to be the first image in the lead section of the article. Gentgeen 05:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

More stuff
Just FYI that I uploaded a bunch more pow wow photos into commons for this or other related articles (Commons link at the bottom of the article will get you there). I am also going to try and tweak the text a little bit to expand on some of the events, but I'll warn everyone in advance that a) the only pow wows I have been to have all been in the Northern Rockies and b) I am not Indian, nor c) do I claim any expertise on the subject, I just go and watch sometimes, so I undoubtably am going to get something wrong. But know it's in good faith.  Montanabw (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Since one cannot view the pictures while editing the page I have hidden comments in the article indicating where the images may go. I have assumed that most images may go anywhere with the following exception: Pictures of men's dances shouldn't go in the women's dances section and vice versus. I will now attempt to space the pictures throughout the article given the new sections I have added. Hyacinth (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The photos can easily be located when editing by looking for use of the "Image" tag and the caption.  Your hidden text isn't really necessary and could be confusing, as sometimes images have to be placed in weird text sections to show up in the right location on the page, though i don't disagree with your placement guidelines.  And no, actually, according to wikipedia guidelines, images can't "just go anywhere" they ARE supposed to go somewhere reasonably close to whatever is being described in the text, so you are correct that men's and women's photos shouldn't be mixed up, but there is a compromise between text layout, flow, and precise placement (sometimes wikipedia markup language does weird things and the images need to be placed in illogical locations to look right on the page once it loads, it's sometimes a matter of trial and error.  However, you are the first person to add anything substantive to this article in months, (no one had done much with it for quite a while before I added all the photos I took last summer and fall), so I'd say not to worry about it too much. Montanabw (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
Galleries are discouraged in wikipedia, so parking the deleted images here for now.

What do we want images of? What do we have images of? What do we need images of? Hyacinth (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article is actually a bit image heavy, but hard to delete anything else because it is important to illustrate so many things. But galleries are tacky, though they are handy for "parking" some proposed images to be added later. You could do one of those Wikimedia commons links if there isn't one there already and be sure the pow-wow section at Commons is well-organized, whoever took those shots of the Seattle Pow-Wow put them in a subsection there, there are dozens. I just threw all mine in the general category over there. We actually have northwest Pow-wow photos up the wazoo, though not all of them are all that great.  Would be cool to have some more stuff from the southwest, but so far nothing has been added that I could find beyond what is in this article.   Montanabw (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the pictures on this page provide broad and balanced coverage by: such that there is an even or a representative number of pictures of men as of women or of small pow wows as of big ones. Given the above more aesthetically pictures should also kept when forced to choose. Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Region
 * Size
 * Gender
 * Dance
 * Tradition/Innovation


 * I guess my question is what specifically in your list of standards is missing now? And what could be prioritized?   One BIG problem is that we are sort of stuck with the limited number of images available to us given Wikipedia's free image restrictions and so we need to just do the best we can with what there is.   You were probably wise to toss all those extra bustle photos, it looks to me like the article is reasonably balanced at the moment to me as far as photos of each of the main categories described in the article, (but then there may be events in other parts of the country that need images and I am not familiar with anything outside of the Northwest/Northern Plains)  though if there is something missing, we can go hunting in Commons and on Flickr to see what can be found.


 * My take is that we need to address content before we worry too much about more photos; your stuff on the music was great, there is also the spiritual component that is not addressed, nor are the topics of judging, prize money, etc.  And we may not be able to find photos for everything that is discussed in the text (or if we could, the article would be too image-heavy). I really have no idea how to deal with the "size" issue with Pow-wows, and there is the rez versus urban thing too:  all the images in Commons appear to be from powwows in urban (or at least small city) areas, can't find anything from reservation powwows such as Crow Fair or Native American Days...though that would be cool.  My take on this is that maybe instead of general concepts, we need to figure out what the article is missing, what can be prioritized, etc. It may be a challenge, but the article could also use come citations from good source material to make the WP:VERIFIABILITY gods happy (try to find written stuff about powwows by people who actually know what they are talking about  - grin).  My biggest contribution here is probably wordsmithing more than content, as I am just a non-Indian spectator who goes to one, maybe 2, powwows a year most years.  I've picked up a few things over the years, but am certainly no expert. Your thoughts?    Montanabw (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand Entry Pictures
Powwows are social events, they are not sacred. Pictures can be taken during grand entry. There are only certain times when cameras are not allowed. Listen the the master of ceremonies. Wade Crowe, enrolled with the Yanktonai Hunkpati Dakota Sioux Nation of Crow Creek, South Dakota.


 * thought so, thanks!  Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are currently two pictures of Grand Entries on the page. While the section for opening states that some Grand Entries may be filmed or photographed, I have never, EVER, been to a pow-wow that has allowed this, and I have been going to pow-wows regularly my entire life. As a general rule, Grand Entry is rarely photographed if ever, due to the event's sacred nature. As this is my first comment, I'd like some feedback on this issue. In my opinion these photos should be removed, but I'm not sure if they are 'allowed' to have been taken in the first place, and their presence just seems wrong. XXMrJusticeXx (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, everybody and their dog had cameras at the one where I was taking photos, absolutely no prohibitions on photography were announced or stated. Maybe it depends on the part of the country.  I cannot speak for the other images.  Montanabw (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the photograph of the 1980s Omaha Powwow grand entry that I added to the article several years ago. The photograph is from a Library of Congress field documentation project (and is in the public domain) to record Native music, which was digitized and placed on the LOC's website in 1999. The LOC's about this collection page lets us know that the Omaha tribal chairman, the head singer of the Host Drum, and many other Omaha leaders were part of the team that decided which records (photographs, sound recordings, field notes) to include in the online collection. I don't think there can be a problem using this photograph. Gentgeen (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And I took the other one, in a public event in a public location, and I happened to be standing right next to a local newspaper editor at the time. Had there been a problem, they WOULD have stopped me, folks around here are pretty sensitive to these things. (It is poor form to take photos during prayers, etc., )  Montanabw (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image size, format and how many do we need?
thumb|180px|Armed and dangerous I came to this page with a cool dancer photo from the Smithsonian (actually a bunch of them) -- this fellow reminds me of some of the big, scary guys we used to see at pow-wows in Oklahoma, where I grew up: armed and dangerous....

Anyway, the page was something of a mess, photos all over the place, mostly HUGE uprights with text "sandwiches" -- seriously out-of-kilter per MOS:IMAGES and Manual_of_Style_(layout). I spent some time cleaning up and reformatting. Editor Montanabw reverted almost all of my edits, commenting "Remove forced sizes, and delete rather scary-looking lead photo that is not representative of most pow-wow dancers."

The "scary guy" is a matter of taste (and experience), but the rest of my changes were per MOS:


 * The article has needed assorted cleanup for a while, I'm not going to kick about some of the formatting problems, but the big scary guy as the lead image perpetuates negative "ugga mugga me mean Injun" stereotypes (as does your condescending caption) and unless you can explain what style of dance he's doing, (definitely not a Northern dance) it's a useless image. Also not sure the copyright is OK.  The original lead image of a grand entry at a real Pow-wow, showing variety, is more apt for a lead than some guy putting on an exhibition in Washington, DC.   Montanabw (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1.) MOS:IMAGES says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." A serious problem with the current version. Here, for instance, is the worst text sandwiching I can recall seeing: [Images deleted]

2.) Layout MOS says "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images.... " That's what we have now, imo, and what I was trying to fix.

Anyway, please have a look at My proposed changes, compare it side-by-side to the present Pow-wow, and let's work from there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about we keep the photos as they were for the moment, but you can freely mess with better formatting. I won't argue that the formatting stuff can be improved, though there is a logic to having an image representing each of the styles, even if it makes the article a little image-heavy.  More text can always be added later.   A couple of things, though: Forced image sizes in general are problematic because of different computers and different user preferences can screw it all up.  We're supposed to just use the "thumb" parameter (though there's some way to make a small image double-sized, but I'm not sure how to make it work, so I still use forced sizes when I want a big lead image or if I want stacked images to be the same width) I'm also not sure every image needs to say which pow-wow it's from, other than to define regional styles by locating the event geographically.  And if you can figure out the kind of dance your big scary guy is doing, we can put him in, but farther down, not as a lead image.   Montanabw (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing name change: powwow
Would it be okay if I moved this page to "powwow"? The hyphen is unnecessary. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Powwow → Pow wow –
 * More common form and consensus of most active editors Montanabw (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just moved about a month ago. Seems like it would be better to go through the requested move procedure. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose: A Google search shows "powwow" has about 50% more hits than "pow wow". What is the motivation for this change? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move (nominator) Hmmm. My analysis of Google shows 2,340,000  for "powwow" and 4,520,000 for "pow wow."  My argument is more common use.  That said, Google gives the same results with and without the hyphen.  We could go through the move request thing again, but the last one sat a month with no comment and even I (one of the regular editors on this article) missed that it was even there.  Only two people seem to care about the topic, me and the other person who wanted to kill the hyphen.  I'm OK with killing the hyphen.  There is room for a huge debate on this, and I have no interest in making a big deal out of it, as it isn't a huge issue, just a anal-retentive (does that have a hyphen?) one.  ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: You're right. I swear I did it last night and got ~6M for "powwow" and ~4M for "pow wow". Maybe I was testing it with and without a hyphen instead. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes Google does weird things. No sweat.   Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Pow wow is still an improvement over Pow-wow. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment: Google counts are misleading and unreliable! Notably, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary shows it as one word: powwow. That said, I'm uncommitted either way. Just something to consider... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a dictionary that also uses this spelling, but it also includes a second definition of "a conference or meeting for discussion" that is a use that some Indian people find offensive, so my take is that dictionaries are as mixed a bag as Google. It probably is something that can certainly be debated endlessly, that's for sure.  Montanabw (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical origins
The article has lots of information about modern pow-wows, but I would like to know about the historical period prior to any European influence (i.e., pre-1492).

Were pow-wows held then? What were they like? Were they attended by members of a single tribe, or members of multiple tribes? Were they attended by ordinary Native Americans, or only by chiefs or other high-level tribal leaders? Would like to see a section added to the article to explain these historical origins. 71.221.121.78 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Powwows emerged in the early 20th century due to the United States outlawing many traditional tribal dances. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Note from Yea55: I agree. I was looking for info on the origins of the pow wow, and this article didn't even say how the pow-wow got it's name, forcing me to go to a page with more ads than content* for the same information. (I guess that's what you get for a free encyclopedia.) Seriously, Wikipedia?! ಠ_ಠ

Yea55 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The website with more ads than content: --> <--


 * We are better off here not having material that is not properly sourced than using dubious sources. The site you note above is actually incorrect (there is no such thing as an "Indian word" as there are hundreds of indigenous languages); ceremonial dances were a part of most cultures, and the modern Pow wow is a combination of many cultural elements from multiple tribal nations, so as such cannot be ascribed to a single group.  If you really want additional material, this is a better source.   Montanabw (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ojibwe word "puwaugunugawin" was abbreviated to "pow wow". Originally, this was the "feast of the pipes", celebrating the summer solstice (Anishinabek News, May 2000 & Anishnabe 101, The Circle of Turtle Lodge, 2000, ISBN 0-9687443-0-3)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

List of pow wows?
Not sure there's a point to this yet as so far I don't know if there's many or any articles on individual rodeos, just noting all the ext-linked ones and being aware of some major ones in Canada that may someday have articles. They're often held as part of Indian rodeos, or in conjunction with them; again List of Indian rodeos comes to mind, but so far the Anahim Lake Stampede (a famous one in BC, though all stampedes and rodeos in BCV e.g. the Williams Lake Stampede are generally "Indian" in participation...and audience) and others don't have separate articles; though I think there's Indian rodeo as an article.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are way too many powwows to even considering listing. Any that have their own articles, such as Gathering of Nations can simply be linked in the "see also" section. As far as rodeos, they should be linked under Indian rodeo. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * There is a list of rodeos article (see the link at the end stuff in the rodeo article, and if anyone wants to improve Indian rodeo, it could use some help.  Montanabw (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I restored the two "see also" links, because they should be linked to this article and they are the only powwows I know of that have articles (haven't scoured all Wikipedia though). Frankly, even a List of powwows in Oklahoma would be insanely long and squirrelly, since powwows fade in and out of existence, and 99.9% don't have articles. I was surprised that powwows.com wasn't in the ex links, so I added that. Let them keep track of all the millions of powwows, and let Wikipedia stick to what's published in secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I can live with that, though only because we have few WP articles so far. The powwows.com needs to be properly linked to the actual calendar, though.   Montanabw (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Added BAAITS
Hi all, I just wanted to let you know that I added the BAAITS pow-wow to the short list of pow-wows at the end of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayhomegal (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Passage in article not properly quoted
The reference linked to for the passage "However, such use may be viewed as cultural appropriation and disrespectful." DOES NOT say anything about "cultural appropriation". The ref ACTUALLY claims it is "offensive", not "cultural appropiation". And when I come over to fix the quoted passage, you guys decide to plug your ears and protect it claiming "VANDALISM!!!". I feel I have to reiterate that the ref says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about cultural appropriation. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. --76.21.114.155 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference was dead, so I have updated it. I have also changed the wording to match what the reference actually states ("offensive or disrespectful"), but left the link to the Cultural Appropriation article. I agree that this may be construed as improper depending on how people define the latter, but that's something that we need consensus on! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cultural appropriation is the appropriate descriptive term; also the edit dispute at that article need not come over to this one.  Montanabw (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science
— Assignment last updated by YasmaniGrandahl (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)