Talk:Reservation Dogs

American vs Indigenous
, we seem to be disagreeing on minor distinctions. Reservation Dogs is an American show, whether you like it or not. It is produced and filmed in the United States, and as such, it is an American show. The ethnicity of the cast and crew is not the way country of origin is determined. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it can be argued that with it being filmed in Indian Territory (see Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area and McGirt v. Oklahoma) - which has a Nation to Nation relationship with the United States - and the makeup of the creative team - which is not "American" but citizens of these Nations - that it does not meet the usual definition of "American". Indeed, the descriptor "American" seems to have led you to assume the production was made up of the usual multi-ethnic "American" mix, even though the sources clearly indicate otherwise. The lede does not need to say "American" series or "Indigenous" series - that's why I made the compromise edit with the details. Inserting "American" seems like it can to lead to the type of erroneous assumptions you made. Also, you should also use edit summaries when you make these kinds of changes - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , to my knowledge, Indigenous reservations or "nations" are not considered autonomous enclaves within the United States, so anything that takes place on US territory is therefore American. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. :) - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are being glib, referring to sources, but these source do not prove your point. The series is filmed in the United States, and as such, it is American. Please engage in this discussion in a constructive manner. You do not hold a monopoly on the truth on this topic, and until this disagreement is resolved, you have a responsibility to demonstrate that the changes you wish to make are appropriate for the article. This page originally stated that the series is American, and you chose to alter that. Please demonstrate clearly how Reservation Dogs is not, in fact, an American series. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm serious; read the links and sources. This isn't just about reservations. It's about the legal definitions of Oklahoma as Indian Territory, which was just upheld by the Supreme Court in McGirt, and about the Nation to Nation relationships. It's about the precedent of this being filmed in Indian Territory, and that it was co-directed/produced over the Internet from New Zealand. It's way more complicated than simply being "American", even though you want to simplify it to that. It makes more sense to address those complexities, as I have done with the compromise edit. You have shown repeatedly that you are not reading the links, or even other editors' explanations in the edit summaries (see below). It seems to me that you have some "TV Show" template in your head that you are trying to smash this into, including mangling the unique details that don't neatly fit. I may seem glib, but when a user you won't read the links and sources, it is not up to others to do the work for you. You need to get up to speed if you want to edit here. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Podemski family...
...Has multiple sisters who are all actors, Tamara, Sarah, and Jennifer. As sisters, they obviously have similar bios and a family resemblance. But they are not interchangeable. I fixed this and explained in the edit summary but Revirvlkodlaku reverted. Again, PLEASE read the sources. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Suicide in Indian Country...
Is an epidemic among youth, and an incredibly painful and sensitive issue. See Suicide among Native Americans in the United States. There's a reason Daniel's cause of death had been implied, foreshadowed, but not revealed up until so far into the series. And that when it is finally shown, it's not explicitly or completely shown. I think it does the narrative, and the production, a disservice to simply put it into the episode summary in such a stark fashion. It's also culturally insensitive. Please stop reverting to your preferred version. I don't think you understand the context here. Please be more respectful of the sensitive issues that are being addressed. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will respect your position on this point. I'd like to point out, however, that you are equally reverting to your preferred version. If we operate according to Wikipedia rules and standards, then there should be no reason not to reveal a spoiler. That was your initial argument, by the way; now you seem to have switched to the culturally specific topic of suicide and the supposed insensitivity of discussing it. It is likely true that you are more familiar with the context than I am, and this is why I am deferring to you. However, going forward, I would prefer that you avoid making this a personal issue. You could've simply explained your position without making it about me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

When the FX on Hulu branding goes away...
Can't we just say that the show premiered on Hulu, "initially under FX on Hulu branding"? Consider that by the time the next season premieres, the branding will likely be gone. It's still Hulu though, and it's not like it's moving, it's just getting wallpaper replaced. Like if a show that had a product placement deal lost it and moved forward with the generic... I think? I hope someone understands what I'm getting at--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Again, you are being incivil in your edit summaries. There is no evidence the plants were in the house, and it is cited that Cheese has no idea why he has been arrested. You are pushing your POV that they are guilty. Which is particularly off-base for Cheese's character. Why are you insisting on doing this, and once again being insulting about it. Stop it. Additionally, we have in the past linked actors to films they are known for until they get articles of their own. We did this with several of the actors in this article, but now you're shouting about it? Try being civil. You have replied on your talk page saying editors need to "have a thicker skin", which is a red flag on WP for chronic incivility on your part. Repeatedly, you have made edits here that, rather than improving the article, combine to make this an inhospitable environment for other editors. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , here's the problem, as I see it: I'm a professional copy editor, you are not. You take the time to write episode summaries (thank you), and I come along and edit them. This rubs you the wrong way, you take it as a personal slight, and you set out to either restore your version or to modify my edits, even though some of the modifications you make are unnecessary, such as in this case. There doesn't need to be clear evidence that the plants were in the house, it's an edit summary, so it's meant to be succinct. For all intents and purposes, based on what can be seen in the episode, the plants originated in the house. If this later turns out to be inaccurate, it can be mentioned in the respective episode summary that they were planted in the first place. It isn't important to mention that Cheese has no idea why he was arrested—again, it's a summary, not a point-by-point rundown. I've never seen an actor linked by a film they are in (I've edited my fair share of film/television pages), and while this doesn't mean that the practice is nonexistent, it is certainly nonstandard. I am not chronically uncivil, there's no need for you to exaggerate. It happens occasionally, but in my defense, you have a tendency to act as a bully on this page, imposing the nonstandard "Indigenous American comedy..." short description and reverting every time anyone dares to change it to the standard, i.e., "American comedy...", so before you accuse me of creating an inhospitable environment, take a look at your own behaviour. So far, you are the only one who has complained about my edits here, so I suspect the problem isn't nearly as grave as you make it out to be, but then again, as in the past, you have a proclivity for exaggeration—stop it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This would be funny if you weren't so disruptive. You have no idea what careers editors/authors here have. You have not been hired by Wikipedia as a copyeditor. What you are doing is not even copyediting, but rewriting others contribs to change the meaning (and to insert speculation not in the material or cited sources). You are in violation of 3RR, now reverting multiple people. You have no support of citations or consensus and you are in violation of policy. I strongly suggest you undo your last revert of Indigenous girl's edits. This is your final warning. It's here on article talk instead of user talk as when I warned you on user talk you said you wanted to have it here. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are very clearly not copy edits. This is wholesale rewriting of information that changes the meaning of what was originally written. It was reverted and yet @Revirvlkodlaku doesn't seem to understand that once they are reverted they shouldn't continue to force their favorite version into the article. If they are expecting every editor that disagrees with their edit warring on this article to notify them then I will gladly oblige. While WP:BRD is not a requirement we are required to follow policy at WP:EPTALK of which BRD is one solution. Edit warring and uncivil behavior is always a grave situation and it almost always creates an inhospitable environment for collaboration. -- A Rose Wolf  19:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @CorbieVreccan I don't need to know what you do for a living, but the way you write makes it clear that you are not a professional copy editor. This is not meant as a slight, and I would normally not mention it, but for the fact that you are calling me out for basic copy edits. I do not believe I have contravened any policy, and I have not reverted anyone's edits in this case, certainly not to the extent that you are claiming. I have merely altered the wording, which is not the same as reverting. I have not attempted to change the meaning of the content in any way, that is a false insinuation on your part. All I've done is make the summary more succinct, less repetitive, and less clunky. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You undid my edits, told me to quit splitting hairs and making things clunky. I have not been uncivil to you at all. I have tried to be understanding that you likely may not get some of the cultural nuances, some which were important and when making edits to include the nuances I have tried to explain why clearly. I hope you don't take my explanations as demeaning or belittling, I am trying to be helpful and making the article not only true to the episode but true to the Native humor and cultural inclusions that have been important to the series that people might otherwise miss or not understand. I do not think my edits necessitate supposition, accusations or belittling. My skin is quite tough, your comments don't make me sad, I simply find them out of place. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Indigenous girl I think you may be confused. I haven't accused you of being uncivil. In fact, I haven't addressed you at all, I've been discussing this issue with CorbieVreccan. There's nothing wrong with undoing or modifying your edits, is there? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm participating in this thread because you have been uncivil toward me for no reason what-so-ever. You have reverted my edits even though you claimed you did not revert edits. Your statement of "All I've done is make the summary more succinct, less repetitive, and less clunky." is untrue. It would be nice to discuss changes rather than have you revert with accusations in the comments. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever being uncivil towards you. Are you referring to a revert as uncivil behaviour, or did I do something else? My statement of "All I've done is make the summary more succinct, less repetitive, and less clunky." is absolutely true! Why are you accusing me of lying, and what are you suggesting my motive is?! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't find the revert uncivil, though I'm glad you finally mentioned that you have reverted. You accused me of splitting hairs. That may have been your perception but that is not what I was doing. I was simply trying to improve the article. I have no idea what your motive is. I am not in your head. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Indigenous girl you say you don't find the revert uncivil, yet you have accused me of being uncivil towards you. How have I done that? Also, you've accused me of being dishonest but then you turn around and claim to not know what my motive is. Why claim dishonesty, in that case? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Revirvlkodlaku,again, I find it uncivil that you accused me of splitting hairs. You didn't bother to even try engaging with me, you just hurled an insult without knowing my motivation. You yourself stated you did not revert anyone, that is not the truth. It doesn't matter if I find the revert uncivil or not, the point is you were dishonest. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying someone is splitting hairs is hardly uncivil, I think you're being oversensitive. Also, I wasn't being dishonest, that isn't in my nature. If I said I hadn't reverted and the history shows that I did, it's more likely that I misremembered or misspoke. Try being a little more charitable instead of being so eager to hurl accusations. Anyway, this isn't getting us anywhere, so I'm just going to leave it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's clear you are engaging in incivility and a slow rolling revert war. Several comments from you indicate you believe yourself to be a better/superior editor/copy editor than other contributors to this article. This is not the collegial or collaborative attitude Wikipedia encourages. You characterize your edits and wording as "more succinct" and clearer than other editors' wording. There are at least three other editors objecting to your edits. You consistently oppose changes to your preferred wording and tone. If you cannot work collaboratively here, I'm strongly considering blocking you for incivility. Consider this a final warning if you continue to show incivility to other good faith editors. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mark Ironie this may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to me. I've accused CorbieVreccan of a few things that I believe to be accurate, such as exaggeration and hair-splitting. I only pointed out to them that I'm a professional copy editor in order to explain the motivation behind my edits, not to seem superior. In fact, in the same comment, I thanked them for their work. Which part of this is uncivil? It seems you are cherry-picking what to focus on. All my edits have been done in good faith, and I have no intention of obstructing anyone's work. I've changed specific wording where I saw fit, and I've made compromises in areas that I didn't consider important. I do believe this to be collaborative, even if sometimes disagreements arise, as in this case. I would appreciate it if you could take an even-handed approach to this issue instead of singling me out for perceived wrongdoing. Final warning? When was I given a first warning, and what for? Are you threatening a good-faith, productive member of the Wikipedia community with a block for such milquestoast comments as "pedantic" and "hair-splitting"? That hardly seems justified. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , where you may receive a block is for disruption which is not collegial and is uncivil by its nature and whereas you may be a good faith editor your actions speak something completely different. You have now had four editors, including two admins, come forward saying there is an issue with what you did and how you did it. We have offered insight into where you went wrong based on our individual review of the situation. If you decide to continue down the path that everyone else is wrong and you are right then that is a classic case of WP:IDHT and I do believe a block is warranted. It is absolutely a falsification of what happened if you continue to push the narrative that you made the summary more succint and clearer. When an edit summary begins "undoing changes to episode summary" that is not copy edits, that is reversion. I expect a professional edit copier to know that. You didn't change a few wording to something less verbose but synonymous to the original text. You didn't correct spelling or punctuation. You changed the meaning of the summary. That is an alteration to your preferred version of the article. Not copy editing. -- A Rose Wolf  13:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf I'm convinced you are mistaken. Not out of any sense of obstinacy—I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong when I can see my error, but assuming we are talking about the episode summary for "Stay Gold Cheesy Boy", I can assure you that my sole intention in the edits and reverts I've done was to keep the content succinct, grammatically sound, and written in a manner that is pleasing to the eye, while doing my best to stay true to the content of the episode. There has been no attempt at falsification on my part, that is an unwarranted accusation from you. The editor(s) with whom this dispute arose has, in my view, made the summary wordier than it needs to be and insinuated a subplot that, at this point in time, seems speculative, unless they have an insight into the subsequent evolution of the storyline. In the story, at face value, it appears clear that police officers are removing cannabis plants from the house, and that is what I have recounted in the summary. This editor is suggesting that the contraband was planted by the police, but there appears no clear indication of this in the episode. This is the reason why I have maintained a face-value recounting of the episode, which, in my opinion, is the more parsimonious way of writing it until a clear picture of any putative subplot emerges. Again I ask, how is this uncivil, uncollegial, or in any way disruptive? If I may be allowed some speculation of my own, it seems this whole saga is about more than mere plot accuracy. Seeing as the topic of this show is one that in the present day addresses sensitive issues of a social-justice nature, my impression is that the dispute here has more to do with identity politics than mere content, but if this is so, it should be acknowledged rather than making unfounded accusations against me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to be convinced however you want but it doesn't address how you feel "undoing changes" does not constitute reversion. You do not explain how you think it is simply copy editing when it is plain that it is not. Also you used uncivil disparaging remarks (pedantic is an insulting word) in the edit summary when referring to CorbieVreccan and their edits. You then came back to the article and undid Indigenous Girl's edits, which actually improved the wording of the article . In that same edit you removed a comma from "Navajo, Lakota, and Ojibwe" in which having a comma before the 'and" is accepted practice (WP:COMMA) and preferred by many, so all of this combined is literally just changing the article to your preferred version. You gave off the appearance of nitpicking over these edits just because you didn't like that, by your speculation, these editors were playing "identity politics", another aspersion and assumption of bad faith. You defiantly refuse to listen when other editors are telling you that you are wrong because, in your own words, you are convinced we are mistaken. You are entitled to your opinion but on Wikipedia consensus rules, not your opinion, however expert you feel it might be. Four editors, including two admins, have come forward telling you that what you did was wrong and yet you double down on it claiming that we are casting aspersions when we are literally taking what you did and wrote and giving it back to you as you said and wrote them. -- A Rose Wolf  16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * did you notice that the police were Oklahoma Highway Patrol as opposed to rez cops? Did you see what I posted below about law enforcement in Indian Territory? What about a dispensary being located in community? Because of these issues it is obvious to me and other Native people that something is up. I also understand that most non-Native people would miss this which is why I attempted to explain it. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Indigenous girl I didn't notice what kind of police were involved in the raid, and I did read what you posted about law enforcement in Indian territory. While you are likely correct in your interpretation of the events, and you clearly know more about this particular topic than I do, you are still just speculating, and speculation does not belong in an episode summary, that's what I'm trying to say. If your suspicion is borne out in subsequent episodes, this can then be added to their description, and previous summaries can be retroactively modified, but as it stands, I believe the episode summary should reflect what the casual viewer sees happening onscreen. If you disagree, please tell me why. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf :
 * 1. "undoing changes" is a structural description of what I've done, and it can just as much constitute grammatical changes as content modifications, so I'm not sure on what basis you are claiming that I haven't been copy editing, when that's exactly what I've been doing.
 * 2. I admit using (mildly) disparaging remarks, and while I understand that this is not ideal, at that juncture, it certainly seemed like CorbieVreccan was being pedantic and in the past, this editor has taken actions that struck me as rather arrogant.
 * 3. As to your claim that I undid the edit by Indigenous Girl which you linked, if you look carefully, you will notice that I didn't undo their edit, I merely modified the wording and again, if you look carefully, I was actually the one who placed the serial comma there. I insist on the serial comma in most cases, I even have a userbox in my profile stating this, so why would I remove a serial comma?? The fact that you have clearly misread the edit history in two instances suggests to me that you are being less circumspect than you should be in issuing warnings and chiding me.
 * 4. Claiming that someone is motivated by identity politics is not an accusation of bad faith, it simply suggests that their motives are not neutral.
 * You have demonstrated that your interpretation of the edit history is flawed, which strengthens my conviction that not only are you mistaken in your admonitions, but that there is much more going on here than a mere content or stylistic dispute. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit I misread the serial comma portion of the edit. Excuse me but I know what a reversion is. The continued bad faith assumptions and uncivil remarks you continue to throw out does you no favors. The article prior to Indigenous Girl's edit read "As one of the group who helped Cheese leave the group home, Jackie now becomes part of the Rez Dogs." The Indigenous Girl edited that portion of the article to read "Cheese's friends welcome him home, including Jackie who, having helped free him, is now accepted as one of the group." Then your reversion states "As one of the group who helped Cheese leave the group home, Jackie now becomes part of the Rez Dogs." That's called a reversion. You may have done some copy editing in the the edit itself but that portion is reverting. There is much more going on here than just a stylistic dispute. It is clearly either a WP:IDHT or a WP:NOTHERE behavioral issue and if it continues you might very well find yourself on a noticeboard. That's the facts so, the option you have is to continue the attitude that your "expert" and "professional" opinion matters more than that of other editors and admins here or you can acknowledge the issues that others take with your approach without the bad faith assumptions and work with other editors to address the issues and try to find common ground. -- A Rose Wolf  20:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, Indigenous Girl adds "appear to", the number "two", and "the" to "house". In the diff I provided you came back and reverted "appear to" and the number "two" altering the meaning of the edit. That's not copy editing. That is reverting. I encourage you to recant your statement that ALL you did on this article was copy editing which is clearly not true. I am not here to entertain your fancies about some perceived conspiracy theory. I am evaluating your statements and your actions on this article. Undoing changes is undoing changes and copy editing is copy editing. Even if an editor does copy editing and you come back and undo those edits you can't claim you were copy editing. You reverted. And even if you undo those changes and replace them you still reverted and replaced, not copy edited. -- A Rose Wolf  20:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article prior to Indigenous Girl's edit read "As one of the group who helped Cheese leave the group home, Jackie now becomes part of the Rez Dogs." The Indigenous Girl edited that portion of the article to read "Cheese's friends welcome him home, including Jackie who, having helped free him, is now accepted as one of the group." Then your reversion states "As one of the group who helped Cheese leave the group home, Jackie now becomes part of the Rez Dogs." That's called a reversion. You may have done some copy editing in the the edit itself but that portion is reverting. That is both reverting and copy editing. Why would they need to be mutually exclusive? I reverted because the extra language was repetitive and unnecessary—this is a definition of copy editing. Why do you consistently insist that reverting cannot be copy editing? Surely if one version reads better and someone changes it, reverting back to the better version is part and parcel of establishing the copy edit. MY SOLE INTENTION IN THIS WHOLE SAGA HAS BEEN TO COPY EDIT. STOP INSINUATING THAT I HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES. You are accusing me of bad faith with no grounds for such a claim. I am not one to resort to conspiracy theories, but with this type of accusation flying at me, what else am I supposed to think?! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Revirvlkodlaku, when you start yelling I am done. That's completely not part of a civil discussion. Civility is not an option and neither is Good Faith so when you assume a conspiracy is being hatched by fellow editors that is a problem. And when you start yelling as if you are shouting down other editors that is a problem. Likewise the attitude that you are above reproach is a problem. I do not deserve to be yelled at and so I am done here. Anyone else can read through this discussion and look at the edits and edit summaries and draw their own conclusions. You continue to be uncivil so you get no more of my time. -- A Rose Wolf  13:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Law enforcement in Indian Territory
Regarding season 2 episode 7, "Stay Gold Cheesy Boy", it's clear there is a lack of knowledge regarding law enforcement/legalities in Indian Territory (among other things). This is obvious in edits that are being made. For example, why are the state police there??? It is very suspicious. Why? "When the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma, most attorneys following the case generally understood it to mean that the state of Oklahoma lacks criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation." I don't want to participate in edit warring so I will leave the questionable edit as it stands but it is becoming frustrating to see corrections reverted or argued in favor of inaccuracies when it comes to culture, tradition, Native humor, Native vernacular and Native law (previously arguing McGirt was over the top ridiculous, this episode is also a McGirt issue). Indigenous girl (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not only does all of this go to indicate that something is off, but Jumbo and his friend (Bobby and Migizi) work at a pot dispensary (Uncle Brownie episode). - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

24 hour block of Revirvlkodlaku
I've given Revirvlkodlaku a 24 hour block from this article and talk page. Editwarring and incivility are the main reasons. They were warned several times by editors here and by myself in an Admin capacity. If, after the block expires, they do not engage civilly and productively with other editors, please drop a note on my talk page. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous question
I'm making another section because the previous is kind of old and frankly it has derailed. I'm asking for consensus to correct the line "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors" because even using the incoherent UN definition, a definition hyperlinked in the same line, a considerable number of albanian tv series can be considered featuring "all indigenous writers and directors" and albanian televison is older than Reservation Dogs. PedroPistolas (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for Indigenous Albanian television productions that meet these criteria? If so, we could globalize the context by simply adding a word or two to indicate region. But that would kind of be redundant, as we've already specified that the series is Indigenous American. It's really only worth consideration if you have solid sources. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi for exemple Portokalli but really nearly every albanian series is written and directed by albanians. I'm using albanians because they are explicitly cited in the page linked in that line. Using other peoples present in the same page can be considered "series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors" A Kindred Spirit or Secret Love or Goenkale or tens, hundreds maybe, of tv series from around the world.
 * I think that that line should be changed because to work there should be a strange specification that puts this series as a "series to feature writers and directors with at least a parent of native american or maori origin" because Taika Waititi wrote an episode but I should add that already exists a tv series written and directed by maori in 2017 the series being The Ring Inz.
 * I suggest going from "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors, along with an almost entirely Indigenous North American cast and production team" to "It features an almost entirely Indigenous North American writers, directors, cast and production team" PedroPistolas (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You still haven't cited any sources, and your suggestions diverge from what's in the sources and into WP:OR/opinion. You also don't seem to have read the whole article, or the sources, as you are mischaracterizing a number of the people involved and what they do on the show. You seem to be pushing a WP:COATRACK issue here. I looked at the Albania article and searched on "Indigenous". There is nothing about Albanians being Indigenous. Not all people from a country or place are Indigenous. This source, cited in the Albania article, for instance, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Albania : Overview lists other ethnic minorities in Albania, and does not call Albanians Indigenous. I was going to suggest alternate wordings, but I really don't think you've made a case for any being needed. What we have now is supported by the sources. Your suggestions just aren't. Sorry. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what? I linked the wikipedia pages for all the sources. Then I'll go step by step.
 * The page linked in the "indigenous" word in this page is [|this];
 * in that page you can see:
 * "Notable Indigenous minority populations in Europe that are recognized by the UN include the Sámi peoples of northern Norway, Sweden, and Finland and northwestern Russia (in an area also referred to as Sápmi); the Uralic Nenets, Samoyed, and Komi peoples of northern Russia; the Circassians of southern Russia and the North Caucasus; the Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, and Crimean Karaites of Crimea in Ukraine; the Basques of Basque Country, Spain and southern France; the Sorbs of Germany and Poland, the Irish Travellers of the island of Ireland, the Sardinians of Sardinia and the Albanians of the Balkans."
 * I should note that your source clearly states as minorities not indigenous people like roma and egyptians (in fact albanians appear in the macedonia's page) while saying that albanians come from the illyrians.
 * anyway
 * the same page alongside albanians cites many peoples like basques, georgians, armenians and maori and I provided exemples of series written e directed by basques, georgians, armenians and maori.
 * I think you should concede at least for the maori because the phrase on Reservation Dogs' page is based on the fact the Taika Waititi is a writer in there but since 2004 there is a whole network comprised exclusively of programs made by maori for maori https://www.maoritelevision.com and you can check for the teams behind these series, like The Ring Inz, to find plenty of exemples. PedroPistolas (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chiming in to state that "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors" is appropriate. Because all writers and directors are Indigenous. If, one of your examples, one of the writers or directors happened to be using Sámi, or perhaps Selkup, it would still be correct that, "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors" because they are all Indigenous. Maori are Indigenous. Native Americans and First Nations people are Indigenous. I'm not seeing what your issue is PedroPistolas. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still no sources saying anything you've linked or mentioned has all Indigenous writers and directors. Waititi is not just a writer of one episode. He's a co-creator of the series. Which is one of the reasons it's all-Indigenous. Again, you don't seem to be reading the article, let alone the sources. This is not the place for your issue. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't act like this in wikipedia. You are putting forward the position that every hongkongese, georgian or albanian tv series has at least one foreigner in the team and frankly you are infantilizing entire ethnicities saying that they are unable to produce some kind of art.
 * I linked the page, I linked a whole site yet you keep saying that.
 * Now I'll put in here a source that even you should concede it's appropriate
 * https://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/ahikaroa/about/creative-team
 * and here the biography of every single member of the creative team that states clearly that there is at least a pre-2021 series made by maori people
 * Quinton Hita [] []
 * Hanelle Harris []
 * Kiel McNaughton [] []
 * Jessica Hansell has a page in wikipedia too but here another source []
 * Todd Karehana [] []
 * I hope you will not say that Karen Te O Kahurangi Waaka-Tibble is not maori. PedroPistolas (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors, along with an almost entirely Indigenous North American cast and production team." This is the entire sentence. How many of the sources you provided for a series featuring all Indigenous writers and directors also include an almost entirely Indigenous North American cast and production team, any of them? Which ones in particular? I don't think you are comprehending the sentence. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And I am pointing out that the first part "It is the first series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors" is factually incorrect because Taika Waititi, co-creator and writer, is from a Maori father but there is at least another series prior to this written and directed by an all-maori team and I provided undeniable sources for this PedroPistolas (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an entire sentence, not two separate thoughts. The show is unique because of both, not one or the other. That is why it states 'along with'. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indigenous writers and directors exist. Not the same thing. I did a search on > First all-indigenous television series written directed < which brought up pre-show publicity for the Australian TV series Redfern Now, and that they planned for it to be all-Indigenous writers and directors. But that is not the entire creative team. I was about to change the lede to: "Reservation Dogs is an Indigenous teen comedy drama television series created by Sterlin Harjo and Taika Waititi for FX Productions. It is the first American series to feature all Indigenous writers and directors, along with an almost entirely Indigenous North American cast and production team." But then I looked at the IMDb entries for the show, and I cannot confirm that they followed through on this plan. I see a number of writers and directors, let alone other production staff, that I cannot confirm are Indigenous. The sources are prior to the series' run. And anyway, digging through credits and speculating this way is WP:OR. I also note that even sources like this one have text that doesn't align with the headline: Cameras roll on first all-Indigenous TV series] - "Under the guidance of British writer Jimmy McGovern, Indigenous screenwriters created a series..." So, close, but not quite the same, unfortunately. It's a good show, but not equivalent. I think it's time to drop this. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 02:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That source clearly include the whole team and I provided a biography for all of them. Ahikaroa is a series written and directed by maori (or maori-samoan) artists and the information come from the network site which, in turn, is a governmental entity so it qualifies as primary. I didn't link IMBD because it's not considered a reliable source but if you use it you can check the series I've already put forward like The Ring Inz that in IMBD has only indigenous writer and directors.
 * You asked clearly undeniable proof that there are series written and directed by maori people that predates Reservation Dogs and I provided primary sources. What else can I provide?
 * You provided another series but how that disqualifies for osmosis Ahikaroa? They aren't even from the same network, not even from the same nation. PedroPistolas (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic): which Indigenous American tribes do the various characters in this series belong to? Are they Muscogee, since the show is filmed on Muscogee territory? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the characters speak a bit of Mvskoke in passing. The caption translation thought it was French, lol. There are also Mvskoke images on buildings and, IIRC, the tribal cop logos, and I'm pretty sure the passage songs sung for Mabel's crossing were Mvskoke, as well. But besides it being really obvious via context (and WP:OR), I don't think it's ever been stated explicitly for particular characters (and if so, which ones). I'm not sure Sterlin wants it that specific? I could be wrong. For it to be encyclopedic, it would have to be stated explicitly in a third-party, WP:RS source. If you have those sources you can add it. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration regarding key elements surrounding the marginalization of Indigenous Native American people
I don't see any productive collaborative talk about how to properly represent the key elements that are pivotal from the production of Reservation Dogs and the role it now plays in society. Or the need for people to see the way that Indigenous Natives are represented in this show compared to others in the past, and to understand why that is so important. People need to know that they matter. They need to make connections with other people and be exposed to other cultures for optimal development. People need to be represented equally in the media. To do otherwise would mean to convey a message to the public that would suggest that people represented in the media the most, matter most. A message we have given our world in the past that doesn't serve our society. There should be discussion about that and there is not, but there are some productive things. The talk page starts off with quite a bit of edit warring; over whether the show is "American" or not of all things, but there are also some helpful edits others made that are beneficial to the article. This wiki has a C-class rating and is part of a Wikiproject.

Abriverside (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)