Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe

Bands, Reserves, Communities
As we slowly expand the articles in this section, should we have separate articles for bands and reservations and then any communities on those reservations. For instance, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is headquartered in Red Cliff, Wisconsin on the Red Cliff Indian Reservation. Should that be three articles or one? Currently, we have some articles written for bands under the name of the reservation and some under the name of the band. (Leo1410 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC))
 * That would clearly be three articles at the end. As a start, Red Cliff, Wisconsin would be a separate from the tribe, but as the tribal information develops, the tribal and reservational articles would develop to their own right.  A good example of that is the White Earth Indian Reservation being the original tribe and reservation article but grew to a point they were then separated to the more correct reservation article and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe article. CJLippert 02:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree considering tribal members can live off reservation, some larger reservations have more than one "town" within them, etc. Plus, one could add very good infomation on the history of a reservation that doesn't really fit the article about the band and vice versa.  As such, I would support leaving Curve Lake First Nation 35, Ontario and Curve Lake First Nation separate. (Leo1410 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

In the similar lines, we have several non-wikipedia sites that list all the historical Bands and communities. Often they are muddled together or duplicated due to different phonetic spellings. With the Algonquin article, consolidation has been taking place in listing these historical Bands and communities. We still need to do the same with Ojibwa. I don't know quite how we would do this, but we then would need so somehow connect the historical communities to the contemporary communities. Also, do we have a full listing of US non-Frederally Recognized Anishinaabe bands and Canadian non-Status Anishinaabe Bands anywhere yet? And how would we ensure that the non-independent Bands who are often lumped together with the non-Recognized/non-Status would not be? CJLippert 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been placing the Nishnawbe Aski Nation template at each of the articles on NAN communities and have been running into the same problem. In most cases the article is at XXXX, Ontario rather than XXXX First Nation.  So far, I just made redirects to whatever the article is already at.  The problem has been when the community is more than just the reserve.  In these cases (Moose Factory, Ontario, Chapleau, Ontario) I didn't make any redirects.  Since I know next to nothing about those communities, and Cree is outside the scope of this project, I'll let someone else worry about it.

Leo1410 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Move
I would like to move this list off of my user page. My contributions to wikipedia tend to come in bursts, and I don't want to create the appearance of any ownership over this information. Any suggestions for a new home? (Leo1410 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
 * I would suggest as a sub-page of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.

Rmhermen 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Library of Congress Images
There are some good images at the Library of Congress website http://memory.loc.gov/ including photographs of a Cass Lake and a Sandy Lake chief and numerous others. Are we allowed to use those on wikipedia? (Leo1410 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

Template
I created this template to help direct people to this page. Does anyone know if it will still work with the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America system. I dont want them to think we're seceding from the big project. If it doesn't work, we'll have to redo it.

(Leo1410 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC))


 * I tested the new template, and everything is good. When it is placed in a talk page, it is still registered on the main project lists.  Just place  on our talk pages, and you will see this:

(Leo1410 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I got our template to deposit articles into the categories Category:Anishinaabe articles with comments and Category:Unassessed Anishinaabe articles AND into the corresponding categories in the main Indigenous Peoples of North America project. The only thing I'm not sure of at this point is how it will handle articles that have already been assessed by the old template. Leo1410 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I temporarily put the tag on Talk:Anishinaabe, rated start on the other template. It still came up unassessed.  We'll need to figure that out.

Leo1410 02:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started putting the template on all the articles without the other template or where the other template is unassessed. In these two cases, nothing changes on the main project lists. I've left it off any articles that have already been assessed until we can figure out how to properly transfer the assessments to the new template. Also, I've been leaving it off articles like petroform, wigwam, Leonard Peltier, etc. where singling it out as Anishinaabe wouldn't be appropriate. Leo1410 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the way the page is now set-up, but in order to make it a bit more navigable, could we add two additional tabs, one with all the bands/Nations/consortia and another tab with all the treaties/agreements/treaty-issue? On an XP system, it is not an issue but with Win98 system, the page is still way too long and and only loads up partially.  By moving some of these to their own tabs, hopefully the each tab will load fully without a problem. CJLippert 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Migration of images from hr.wikipedia to commons.wikipedia?
We currently have several images found at the Croatian local-Wikipedia not found at the Wikimedia commons. For the benefit of the the full Wikimedia umbrella, if these images can be proved either fair use or copyright free, we should migrate these images to commons.wikipedia. As a side note, we should also visit each of the non-English local-wikipedia articles to see if there are any other articles in en.wikipedia that should be included in this project. CJLippert 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking around and found a number of Anishinaabe articles (mostly stubs) on the Catalan wikipedia of all places that we don't have on the English wikipedia. I know enough Spanish to decipher most of the text and may try to translate some of them.  Mostly a curiousity though.

Leo1410 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Algonquin Mythology link?
I'm moving this from Talk:Algonquin to here. CJLippert 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user with IP 80.229.29.19 left a "vandalized" comment I moved here, but the comment is a very good one. The anonymous user comments that:
 * Algonquin mythology (*** WIKI EditoR - This link is confusing. ***)
 * Do we know what the intention of this link is? Shall we have this link instead redirect to Chippewa mythology?  On that note, should the Chippewa mythology article be renamed as Anishinaabe mythology in order to be more inclusive?  Suggestions?  Ideas?
 * CJLippert 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say Anishinaabe mythology is the way to go. If Odawa mythology, Algonkin mythology, Ojibwe mythology, etc. all had their own articles, there would be an awful lot of overlap. However, differences in traditions should be pointed out where they exist. At the very least, Chippewa Mythology should be moved to Ojibwa Mythology for the sake of consistency and since many Northern Ojibwe dislike "Chippewa" while I've never met anyone who was strongly against "Ojibwa."

On a related note, I think a very good article could be written on Ojibwa totems or perhaps Anishinaabe totems would be more appropriate. We already have a good start in the Ojibwa article. I've been so busy lately, my wiki edits have been all drive-bys--no new articles. Hopefully soon. Leo1410 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that "Anishinaabe" works better, being more inclusive. I'll do what I can to help out with any such articles (and related, more specific ones), but you both know a great deal more than I do, so I don't know how helpful I'll actually able to be. Oh well. Take care, --Miskwito 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then here is the next question. Should the word "mythology" even be used at all? After all, though the Midewiwin communities are a definite minority, they are not extinct and among the Midew, this is not a mere mythology but a set of real belief system. CJLippert 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Though the word mythology was never supposed to mean "lies," it has seem to have taken on that meaning. For example, if you call Adam and Eve Christian mythology, you'll have some angry people on your hands.  There is a certain negative connotation around words like myth, lore, legend, etc.  Traditional Anishinaabe belief should be treated on the same level as any other religion, so I think there is a better term out there.  Maybe Anishinaabe traditional religion?  I think its important to differentiate what a key secret of the Midew and not intended to be known by outsiders (and really shouldn't be in Wikipedia), and what is widely known as the tradition of all Anishinaabe regardless of religious background.  I think Wenaboozhoo, for instance could be included, and other stories, but the deep secrets (which I certainly don't know and don't intend to learn) should not be in here.
 * Leo1410 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not "religion" either. How about Anishinaabe traditional beliefs? Though some would argue that Midewiwin is a religion, folks around here would say it isn't but rather a life-style, which is exactly what all shamanistic animism practitioners say about their particular belief system and the life associated with that set of belief system. CJLippert 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Muslims say the same thing--Islam is a way of life not a religion.
 * Leo1410 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking around work, I fond this in the Mille Lacs Band's Civil Rights Code regarding Protection for cultural Values (1 MLBSA §13):
 * The Band Assembly for the Non-Removable Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians shall in all its actions seek to preserve and protect the official language of the Band as Ojibwe, the official religion of the Band as Me da win, and protect the Band's aboriginal rights and sovereignty, as well as the unwritten customs and traditions of the Band.
 * If the tribal law says that Midewiwin is a religion, I guess so can we. CJLippert 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, here is the next question. Do we want to for now merge the current Chippewa mythology article into the current Midewiwin article and as this expanded Midewiwin article become more robust, then to split the aricle up at that point in the future? CJLippert 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say because under this belief system, there's really nothing that isn't sacred. However, there are things that should be on wikipedia, and things that really shouldn't. One issue I thought of is that many Ojibweg who aren't part of the Midewiwin still tell stories about the Windigo, Wenaboozhoo, etc. So, putting the Midewiwin and the "mythology" together makes sense, but is problematic as well. I know I'm contridicting myself, but I think Anishinaabe traditional beliefs is the way to go after all. Then, explain how the beliefs are shaped by traditional religion, but exist throughout the culture. Leo1410 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is the hard part, I think. There is the "traditional teaching" (aanike-gikinoo'amaadiwin) and then there is the "stories to point out traditional teachings" (aadizookaan) with a goal to cover the traditional customs (izhitwaawin) and are applicable to Midewiwin and non-Midewiwin peoples.  If the article is to be renamed as Anishinaabe traditional beliefs, there will be a whole lot more that will need to go in there than what is there, since what is there currently is mostly characters often appearing in the aadizookaanan... and the characters are not the same thing as the belief system, but rather only a vehicle to teach about the belief system. CJLippert 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've come all the way around on this. I looked at Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Hindu mythology, and Buddhist mythology. Islamic mythology is a redirect. Talk:Christian mythology has some angry comments in it, but I think the fact that the article seems to be staying and is fairly good, is telling. The article at Religion and mythology does a nice job of laying out the theological definition of myth and how that compares to and is different from core religious principles. For that reason, I think Anishinaabe mythology is the way to go.

That said, there is a tendancy for Western readers of Western encyclopedias to view non-Western mythologies as superstition or cute fairy tales at best, and as devil worship at worst. So, if we do use the term mythology in the title, I think we should have one of the lead paragraphs establish that we are working off of the theological definition of the word, and that these are some of the core teachings of a thriving culture, not relics of an extinct people. Leo1410 16:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone, I did not know you were discussing something already thanks for sending me a message.  I created the stub tonight called Algonquin mythology. It was also a requested article on the main mythology page.   I also noticed a lot of unlinked stubs and references in mythology articles saying certain Gods or spirits were fropm "Algonquin mythology" so I just put them all together on one article, and looked up a few sources.  I hope this has been helpful. Goldenrowley 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My next step (but I will pause for now) would be to remove the stubs of the 4 different articles on "wind Gods" and merge those four stubs to this article. I was trying to consolidate the Algonquin articles already online. Goldenrowley 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, then Goldenrowley, the question now is if the sources you speak of really Algonquin or a generalized term for Anishinaabe represented by the Algonquin, or is it really what Wikipedia calls Algonquian but what many sources call Algonquin? CJLippert 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The stub was designed to talk only of the Algonquin people as the stublets I located were only linked to that, however it can become more broad to the Algonquians. I would warn against gtting too much broader. If there is already a consensus please enlighten me. Goldenrowley 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Algonquin would be too specific as it would be a large overlap with other Anishinaabeg and Algonquian would be too broad, though if character names in each of the Algonquian languages would be given, then it should still be fine. At the minimum, it should be moved up to the Anishinaabe level, but I think further discussions are needed with the full Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America would be needed if this would be moved to the even more broad Algonquian. CJLippert 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hesitate ...Anishinaabe looks like a large distance and population to cover in one article, how much cultural variation are you talking about? How unified was the Anishunaabe religion & culture within the ethnic subgroups. There were no cars and telephones to keep in touch. Is there a reason that the word Algonquin was referenced in mythology articles. I hope I am asking good questions.  Goldenrowley 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you'll be quite surprised! There are some variations but due to a very strong oral tradition and being trades people who travelled a lot, the Anishinaabe stories are pretty consistent across the large area.  Moreover, if you think of Anishinaabeg being from Ottawa River westward to Interlake, the area is really not all that large.  It has been only in the past 200 years the spread across the northern Great Plains have been aggressive.  I agree with Leo that if these minor variations occur, then at that point noting these variation would be worthwhile. CJLippert 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I am convinced and on board with the Anishanaabe idea. Thanks Goldenrowley 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am convinced but must say "expert needed." I leave it up to "Anishinaabe experts" to coordinte the main article and sub_articles Goldenrowley 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

More
Not much seems to have happened in the last month and a half with this. The Chippewa mythology article needs some serious cleanup1 and expansion, of course, and should be moved to one of the locations that were discussed. Personally, I think I'd opt for Anishinaabe traditional beliefs--we could maybe have sections on the aadizookaanan and the characters (like Wenabozho and the wiindigoog) who appear frequently in them, rather than the fairly clumsy throwing-together of various manitous and characters that are in the article now. Then, say, another section for summarizing the Midewiwin and birch bark scrolls...and maybe another on the migration story? As it stands in the article now, the brief mention of the story isn't up to snuff, but it's certainly an important aspect of Anishinaabe legend, yes? I'm not sure if it should just go in with the traditional stories section, though? And should the manitous which inhabit the Anishinaabe world go in a separate section as well, or be incorporated into the aadizokaan section?

1. Example: the first sentence of the lead, as it now stands, reads, "Chippewa Traditional Beliefs comes from the Chippewa a Native Nation of Native Americans located in the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada." ("a Native Nation of Native Americans"?)

Thoughts? --Miskwito 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merged, rearranged, divided, tagged. Still needs major clean-up, but I hope that this would at least provide a framework for doing such cleanup.  The characters are still jumbled together, but I have placed them right after the aadizookaan section so the characters section can easily be made into a subsection of the previous.  I think there are some characters that need to be weeded out because it may be that the original pre-merged articles may have gotten "Algonquin" and "Algonquian" mixed up... I've seen some Abenaki mythology character names mixed in the list. CJLippert 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, miigwech! Looks like you've done a good job improving it so far. --Miskwito 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ojibwe language userboxes
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Babel. Please visit and discuss. CJLippert 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Map files
I have some leftover map files from an outside project I was doing that could be turned into some good maps for wikipedia. I don't have the time to do it myself right now, but if anyone has access to ARCGIS or Adobe Illustrator, the files are there for the taking at https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/klmakolondra/web/ I should note that the color scheme isn't very good and it does not highlight Algonkian reserves, but if someone wants to go through the trouble to find them, they are in with the non-Anishinaabe reserves. Leo1410 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation
Just a note that I'm working on translating the Anishinaabe language page into Spanish for the Spanish Wikipedia; my goal is to eventually have all the same articles from the English Wikipedia over there. Right now, there's barely anything there at all on languages and Native Americans. What I have so far will be at Usuario:Miskwito/Notas. I'm not fluent in Spanish, so I'm bound to be making mistakes; anyone who knows Spanish is of course welcome to help out/pitch in, or just correct my mistakes. Take care, --Miskwito 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hooray! I has finished! Here is the translated article; anyone who knows Spanish, please do correct or improve anything I've screwed up. I didn't include much dialect information in the Spanish version, mainly because it was turning out to be incredibly difficult to translate. Anyway, I guess I'll get to work on translating other Anishinaabemowin-related articles now... --Miskwito 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick request. The fr.wiki has " (en) " as a marker for the articles in English.  Could you just randomly check the es.wiki to see if they have the same of if they have " (en inglés) ".  Meanwhile, I will ask my stepdaughter to take a look at your translation from English to Spanish.  CJLippert 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like for marking external links that are in a foreign language? The Spanish Wikipedia has "(en inglés)" for that. Glad to hear your stepdaughter will be proofreading my translation attempts! Take care, --Miskwito 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another question: "Ojibwe del suroeaste" and "Ojibwe septetrional" or "Ojibwe sudoccidental" and "Ojibwe noroccidental"? CJLippert 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd never heard the terms sudoccidental or noroccidental before, so they didn't occur to me. Are they valid Spanish words? If so, it'd probably be less cumbersome to use them, yeah. --Miskwito 05:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nishnawbe-Aski article accurate?
Please see question posed at Talk:Nishnawbe-Aski. Miigwech. CJLippert 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ojibwa mythology and Category:Algonquin mythology
I don't really think two categories are necessary right now. Algonquin mythology only has three articles in it anyway. My thought is that we should combine them as Category:Anishinaabe mythology, which would then include both the Ojibwes and the Algonquins. Although I'm not entirely clear on how we'd do that--just create the new category, recategorize all the pages that are currently categorized as Ojibwa mythology or Algonquin mythology, and then have Ojibwa mythology and Algonquin mythology deleted?

What are others' thoughts? --Miskwito 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't an easy way to do that. All is now consolidated to Category:Anishinaabe mythology.  I don't know if we want to keep the two old pages as a subset of the new category or to delete the two pages, so that is worth a discussion. CJLippert 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, good work. I'm not sure how much use keeping the two categories as subsets of the new one would really be. We might redirect both of them to Category:Anishinaabe mythology, though? --Miskwito 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or wait, am I misunderstanding what having them as a subset of the new category would entail? --Miskwito 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of those possible rare cases where the commonality don't exist... though I am hard-pressed to think of any examples of such. As far as I know, there seems to be differences in some of the manidoo names, but not with the role (as with the case of misi-bizhiw/mishi-bizhiw) and with wiindigoo/wiijigoo).  Enh.  I suppose we can request for the two to be deleted.  If a need ever arise in the future, the deleted category pages can be re-created. CJLippert 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting
With the issue of the Category:Ojibwa mythology, Category:Algonquin mythology and Category:Anishinaabe mythology, there are also other category sorting issues. Do we want to have a Category:Anishinaabe peoples with these as the subcategories and ensuring whatever in these that ought to be in above are moved to the above: Category:Ojibwa tribe, Category:Saulteaux tribe, Category:Mississauga tribe, Category:Algonquin tribe, Category:Nipissing tribe, Category:Ottawa tribe, Category:Potawatomi tribe, Category:Oji-Cree?

There currently is also the Category:Oji-Cree reserves in Ontario and Category:Ojibwa reserves in Ontario which we may re-sort to Category:Anishinaabe Lands, with the subcategories of Category:Anishinaabe reserves in Canada (with further subcategories of Category:Anishinaabe reserves in Ontario and Category:Anishinaabe reserves in Manitoba), Category:Anishinaabe reservations in the United States, Category:Anishinaabe treaty areas in Canada and Category:Anishinaabe treaty areas in the United States.

Then there is the odd-ball category of Category:Algonquin-language films. CJLippert 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (more added CJLippert 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC))(not many reservations in the US and rest of Canada outside of ON & MB, so combining them all. CJLippert 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC))
 * There are the Category:Potawatomi people and the Category:Ojibwa people as well. CJLippert 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Include Bungee?
Here is another question. Do we want to include the Bungee people (a Métis group) as part of this project? Currently, there is only one article, and it is the Bungee language. CJLippert 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Abe Kakepetum article is CSD
Please visit Talk:Abe Kakepetum and see my review and request to from CSD and suggestion on how to improve. Please assist to bring this article from a stub-class to at least a start-class. Miigwech CJLippert 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming
Any chance I could get Category talk:Ojibwa tribe moved to "Ojibw(a/e) nation" instead of "tribe"? Bearcat 09:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Moved the comment from Category talk:Ojibwa tribe to here for discussion. CJLippert 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose such a move. Ojibwe nationhood is somewhat elusive in the sense that a Menominee can say I am of the Menominee Nation and there is no doubt what that means, but for an Ojibwe is Lac Courte Oreilles a nation?  Lake Superior Chippewa?  Ojibwe? Anishinaabe?  I don't think anyone really has the answer to that.  Anyway though, tribe has all the same problems and nation, it seems, is now the preferred term.  Leo1410 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Lac Courte Oreilles a nation? Lake Superior Chippewa?  Ojibwe? Anishinaabe?  The answer is "yes" to all four.  Here lies the problem of placing an Eurasian concept of nation.  Do we mean a country?  Do we mean a political unit of government?  Do we mean common-bond of peoplehood?  In the case of the governments of Canada and the United States, "nation" is political unit of government.  So then, the next question is what form of government is this.  For each community or aggregation of communities, the answer from each is different.  The best we can do here is take a look at how the people themselves organize themselves and how these interactions relate to other groupings. And then how these successive grouping eventually interact and mesh with the Federal governments of Canada and United States (and for historical perspectives, with British North America and its predicessor the French North America). CJLippert 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we're taking the broadest approach here, would a better name be Category:Anishinaabe peoples? CJLippert 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support changing it to Category:Anishinaabe peoples. Nation is too ambiguous and technically incorrect in North American English, and using Anishinaabe as opposed to Ojibwe is more inclusive. Vidioman 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

General Category Issues
Looking back up the page a few topics, I see that CJ has already proposed a new category scheme. I would support that if someone wants to do it. In that case, if we want to get rid of "tribe," we can just have the name as in Category:Oji-Cree. Category:Ojibwa People is for individuals, so that can't be the main subcategory. The problem I see would be Category:Ottawa and Category:Mississauga will need disambiguation. I like the Category:Anishinaabe Lands idea too. I have started to very slowly work on that big table we've been wanting for a long time at User:Leo1410/Sandbox. The other problem, which has been brought up at the IPNA talk several times is do we want categories like, since Wisconsin is a colonial concept. Of course,  isn't much better. These are the reasons I try to stay out of categorization, but the current scheme could be much better. Leo1410 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC) PS. I didn't even get into the issue of the Potawatomi preference of being included in this group or not.
 * How about this as a proposed Category tree (and a possible "to do" list)
 * create Category:Anishinaabe mythology > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe peoples > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe individuals > done
 * create Category:Algonquin people > done
 * create Category:Ojibwa people > done
 * create Category:Oji-Cree people
 * create Category:Odawa people > done
 * create Category:Potawatomi people > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe groups > done
 * create Category:Algonquin > done
 * create Category:Ojibwa > done
 * redirect Category:Ojibwa tribe > done
 * create Category:Odawa > done
 * create Category:Oji-Cree > done
 * create Category:Potawatomi > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe tribal councils
 * create Category:Anishinaabe tribal political organizations > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe tribal treaty administrants > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe lands > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe reserves in Canada > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe reserves in Ontario > done
 * redirect Category:Oji-Cree reserves in Ontario > done
 * redirect Category:Ojibwa reserves in Ontario > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe reservations and tribal-areas in the United States > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe treaty areas > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe communities in Canada
 * create Category:Anishinaabe communities in Ontario
 * create Category:Anishinaabe communities in the United States > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe languages > done
 * In all these cases have "Algonquin" encompasses Algonquin and Nipissing, and have "Ojibwa" encompasses Ojibwa, Chippewa, Mississaugas and Saulteaux. In the cases of specifically having the land be subcategorised into "Canada" and "the United States" would only be because of convenience, just as further subcategorising within "Canada" into "Ontario" only because there are so many there (Ontario alone have as many Anishinaabe reserves as there are Anishinaabe reserves/reservations elsewhere).  Will this work?  Needs more tweeking?  Yes/No? CJLippert 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * create Category:Anishinaabe communities in the United States > done
 * create Category:Anishinaabe languages > done
 * In all these cases have "Algonquin" encompasses Algonquin and Nipissing, and have "Ojibwa" encompasses Ojibwa, Chippewa, Mississaugas and Saulteaux. In the cases of specifically having the land be subcategorised into "Canada" and "the United States" would only be because of convenience, just as further subcategorising within "Canada" into "Ontario" only because there are so many there (Ontario alone have as many Anishinaabe reserves as there are Anishinaabe reserves/reservations elsewhere).  Will this work?  Needs more tweeking?  Yes/No? CJLippert 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In all these cases have "Algonquin" encompasses Algonquin and Nipissing, and have "Ojibwa" encompasses Ojibwa, Chippewa, Mississaugas and Saulteaux. In the cases of specifically having the land be subcategorised into "Canada" and "the United States" would only be because of convenience, just as further subcategorising within "Canada" into "Ontario" only because there are so many there (Ontario alone have as many Anishinaabe reserves as there are Anishinaabe reserves/reservations elsewhere).  Will this work?  Needs more tweeking?  Yes/No? CJLippert 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In all these cases have "Algonquin" encompasses Algonquin and Nipissing, and have "Ojibwa" encompasses Ojibwa, Chippewa, Mississaugas and Saulteaux. In the cases of specifically having the land be subcategorised into "Canada" and "the United States" would only be because of convenience, just as further subcategorising within "Canada" into "Ontario" only because there are so many there (Ontario alone have as many Anishinaabe reserves as there are Anishinaabe reserves/reservations elsewhere).  Will this work?  Needs more tweeking?  Yes/No? CJLippert 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grey Owl's inclusion should be deleted. He was NOT Anishinabe.

Secondly, Under Military: The Battle of Skull Mound, (Saugeen First Nation) is not included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.103.134 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Article requests – Black Hawk War
Hello. I am working on the Black Hawk War and its related supporting articles. There are several articles that I need to do on numerous individuals, so I thought I would come here. Hopefull someone can either, a)fulfill these requests or b)point me toward quality sources for the article. The articles are related to the leadership element of Black Hawk's British Band. There are listed seven chiefs that need articles and four "war captains" that need articles. See redlinks below.

Chiefs: Pa-mis-seu/Pemisew/"He that Flies", Weesheet, Chakeepashipabo, Checokalako, Ioway, Pamaho, and Towaunonne;

"War Captains": Me-na-cau/Minekaa/"Seed", Ma-ka-tau-au-quat/Makatenaakwat/"Black Cloud", Pa-che-to-wart/Pashetowat/"Liar", and Kin-ne-ko-ne-saut/"He that Strikes First".

It is likely that these individuals were from the Sac, Ho-Chunk, or Fox peoples, possibly, though less likely, Kickapoo and Potawatomi. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. IvoShandor 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Five are for sure Sac: Pemisew and all four "War Captains." Will keep on looking.  If nothing else, you'll have just a bit more information. CJLippert 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chief Buffalo of Lake Superior (name)

 * Discussion moved from Talk:Kechewaishke (was Talk:Chief Buffalo).

Discussion moved back to Talk:Kechewaishke 2/6/2008

Marten Falls FN / Ogoki Post, ON
We need major clean-up here. I have moved the incorrectly named Ogoki First Nation to Marten Falls First Nation but it seems there are a lot of links already established for their community of Ogoki Post, ON. I don't know if we want to consolidate everything into the FN article or officially split the FN (government) article and an Ogoki Post, ON, (community) article and ensure all the current redirects point to the appropriate articles, also ensuring the article linking to these go to the correct article. If we have enough material to have two separate articles, let's do that, but if not, let's just have the one. Would some one begin the clean-up process? Miigwech CJLippert (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hornepayne First Nation
Can someone start an article on Hornepayne First Nation? All I could find was their address and that their Chief is Laura Medeiros. I know what council they're part of but at Matawa First Nations they are listed inconsistently, and they are not listed at all at INAC. NAN lists them, but that's about it. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not listed in Statscan, either. It's probably in Algoma District, if that helps. :\  vıd ıoman  08:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Harmonizing/Beef-up of interwiki articles
Looking at all the main Anishinaabe-related articles in not only the English Wikipedia, but also with other local Wikipedia projects, I see we still have some holes among the supposed "major-language" sites. We should push for getting articles started in the areas where there isn't an article yet. Here are the holes: Some of the other local projects have done a far better job than the English project, and there are some local projects that obviously working off of outdated references, but since the current references are not available, they have biased, outdated or wrong information on their sites. So, what do we need to do to make these main core articles across all these "major-language" be harmonized across all the local projects?
 * Anishinaabe: Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian
 * Anishinaabe language: German, Italian, Russian
 * Potawatomi: German, Italian, Japanese, Russian
 * Odawa: Japanese, Russian
 * Mississaugas: Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish
 * Nipissing: Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish
 * Algonquin: Dutch, Italian, Japanese, Russian
 * Saulteaux: Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish
 * Oji-Cree: Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish
 * Council of Three Fires: Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian

For the Japanese, I can do that relatively easily. We need to urgently get someone with Russian and Spanish knowledge to fill these gaps. French is slowly filling in the voids, as with Dutch, German and Italian. Though Croatian is not considered a "major language," that local project is quickly filling in voids in the Anishinaabe-related articles there.

We have "List of Ojibwa Bands" as a red-link under the main article listing. Do we want to have it just as Ojibwa, or shall we instead have Anishinaabe, with subdivisions within the article among the different Anishinaabe groups? And would "Bands" be the correct word? We should also have three articles of lists or one article divided into three sections each with lists: Government (Tribes/Bands, First Nation), Lands (Reserves, Reservation) and Community (Village, Settlement, Colony). Under the "Government," would we want to have just the Tribes/Bands and First Nations, or do we want to include their Regional Chiefs Council, Tribal Political Organizations and Treaty Administrant Authorities? In the "Lands," do we want to include Treaty-ceded Territories (and in the case of Oklahoma, OTSAs)?

Thoughts, ideas? CJLippert (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A while ago, I started to make that list at User:Leo1410/Sandbox. It's still there, but I remember running into problems with what to include in the tables and probably didn't have time to keep it up and forgot about it.  My inclination is to be as inclusive as possible, and if that means 3 or 4 lists instead of 1, so be it.  Legal distinctions between communities, governments, organizations, etc. is not my strong suit, so I would defer to you on that one.
 * As for the interwikis, there is no other language I can write articles in. I can read an article in Spanish with some difficulty, but I don't think I can help any with expanding other wikipedias.  I will say that, like the Croatian wikipedia, the Catalan one has very good coverage of Anishinaabe articles.  They even have some we don't (Hole in the Day, Roger Jourdain, and William Whipple Warren).  Which, brings me to my next point:  we have some problems with the main articles on the English wiki too.  For how long it is, the Ojibwa article has almost no coverage of the Ojibwe in the 20th and 21st centuries.  One could easily skim it and assume the Ojibwe are either extinct or assimilated.  Since the interwikis are often translations of the English articles, fixing the English versions might be a more productive use of wikipedia time.  Leo1410 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many are translations of the English articles, but there are other local projects that seem to better (such as German). If we get English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Japanese and Russian up to snuff, all others who copy from these would have a better chance on having a quality article on their local project.  Of the 8 "major" local projects mentioned, if we at the very least get English and French be the cutting edge (since the sources would typically be from these two languages), that should give the remaining 6 a model... but that would also mean for us to go to local projects currently having articles better than English or French, see what they're including, and have those points put into the English and French articles as well.  And you're right about the time-line.  The article coverages basically stops at 1890's, with only brief hinting of happening since... a gap of nearly 120 years!  Part of the reason may be that Warren's work goes only to the 1850s and then the additional information just trails off and then sputters from about 1890 onward.  Most of the modern liturature covering the Ojibweg seems to focus not on the whole group but rather on specific groups, such as the Lake Superior Chippewa or the Pillagers.  Others Anishinaabeg groups, such as with the Potawatomis, really don't have a comprehensive history written, leaving the stories be that of individual communities and not the peoplehood as a whole.  At Mille Lacs, this is one of the major reasons why the Elders are saying "The people need to know the real history."  I haven't come across a really good work that can serve as a backdrop reference to pick up where Warren left off.  For smaller groupings, Peacock's Waasa Inaabidaa ("We look in all directions") is really good, as with Benton-Banai's "The Mishoomis Book" but in order for us to stitch something that brings histories and issues to the present, we need similar good local references to cite, covering major geographic areas.  So, now that you've see what is on both sides of the border, do you have any insight? CJLippert (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ojibwa article is such a major undertaking that I have had little desire to even start to edit it. I think the general Ojibwa article can stick to generalities or else it would get too long. My observations are that the experience in Canada vs. the US is more similar than different. History-wise, the treaty, agency/reserve system, residential schools, and fight for sovereign and resource rights. are major topics that should be covered and unfolded in a similar fashion in both countries (though usually in the US a few decades before they happened in Canada). Political and legal issues are subject to significant differences that would require a distinction to be drawn. Culture and religion are more difficult (and surprise! are topics I tend to avoid on wiki). From the Ojibwe people I've known on both sides, I would say the differences are mostly superficial (bannock up north frybread down south, etc.). I would say the Ojibwe in the US express more of an outward "Indian" identity though it is more based on pan-Indian and revived practices where in Canada there are more continuous traditional practices (not that there aren't any of these in the US). The language is stronger in Canada. Christianity is very dominant in many communities in Canada. One caveat is that I was in the far north, and really, there is much more in common between say Grand Portage and Fort William than say Fort William and Big Trout Lake. The North/South distinction is more relevant than US/Canada for culture anyway. I can't say much about the far east and far west.

This is all OR, and there really isn't a comprehensive print source for it that I know of. Really, though, for the purposes of the article, generalities could be used (strong ties to land, hunting, fishing), a mention of different religions (Mide, Big Drum, NA Church, Wabeno/Shaking Tent, Catholicism, Anglicanism..., along with mention of prominent people (Louise Erdrich, Norval Morrisseau, etc.) would make for a culture section that shows the culture is still thriving. Images would help too. Really, the reliance on public domain images is always going to make the article seem 100 years behind, but it's hard to avoid.  Maybe flickr? Leo1410 (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Ottawa (tribe) and Ottawa Indian Tribe articles?
Aaniin, I see we have two Odawa articles: Ottawa (tribe) and Ottawa Indian Tribe. I suspect the second one created recently due to the first one appearing as though it is about the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma (because of their flag being prominent), though that is not what the article is about. Merge? CJLippert (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

expansion of Saulteaux article section
Please see question posed at Talk:Saulteaux. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Lakes Algonquian syllabary
It took me several minutes to figure out that in the table, the first column contains the syllabics and the other columns contain the standard latin orthography of the respective languages—or am I still wrong? -- Hämbörger (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's about right. The letters are supposed to represent what the syllabic looks like but they do a poor job, the letters should be replaced by images showing what the syllabics actually look like.  vıd ıoman  15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Largest tribes
I was checking the German article on the "Anishinabe" and found this line which I doubt is true or at least is misleading: "Zwei der größten Stämme der Anishinabe sind die Saulteaux und Mississauga." (Two of the largest tribes of Anishinabe are the Saulteaux and Mississauga.) Unfortunately, the German Wikipedia has no articles on those two tribal groups and our articles don't really pin down the populations well. What are the largest tribes? Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having finished reading the German article, I find it is a mess. It somehow comes up with the idea that only the Ojibway are Anishinabe. Rmhermen (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Identifying only the Ojibwe as being Anishinaabe is a common problem, even in the US and Canada, and seeps around the world as well, as reflected in the de.wiki. At one time, the Mississaugas were a huge component, but today's estimates puts the Mississaugas as one of the smaller branches of the Ojibwe. My guess (an this is only a guess as I don't know how small of a component they now are), of the ethnic population of 219,711 people who are Ojibwe, the main Ojibwa branch and the Saulteaux branch are the two largest Ojibwa branches (my guess being 40% each -- about 87,884 people each) and the Mississaugas being the remaining 20% (about 43,943). I can go through both INAC and BIA statistics and come up with a ball-park figure, but it will take me a bit to comb through them. CJLippert (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mississaugas: status = 6,272; non-status = ~ 2,500; total = ~8,770... which means the Mississaugas are 4% of total Ojibwa. CJLippert (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saulteaux: status/full = 67,563; status/in-part = 12,737; non-status = ~200; total = ~76,760 + ~12,740 with known Saulteaux ancestry who are also status Indians... which means the Saulteaux are 35% of the total Ojibwa, making the main Ojibwa groups be 61% of the total Ojibwa or about 134,024 people. I was close on my guess on the Saulteaux, but boy was I way off on my guess on the Mississaugas! CJLippert (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Selwyn Dewdney
I'm seeking the aid of an administrator in regard to this article. For the past month, a series of anonymous IP editors have continuously attempted to add material to the article in the form of dubious claims and posting citations in support of them, which not only do not back up what's being contended by the editors, in the most recent examples they actually specifically refute what is being claimed. I have attempted (at length) both on the discussion page of the article itself and on various talk pages of those making the edits to engage those involved in a discussion regarding these matters. These attempts are simply ignored and the material is fairly consistently reverted without comment on either the articles discussion page or my own talk page. This continues, despite the fact that I have posted specific quotes from the references that are being posted on the articles talk page which clearly demonstrate their complete inappropriateness in this context. Although, I've been attempting to maintain "good faith", it's appearing more likely to me all the time that what's perhaps going on is retaliatory 'tag-teaming' in nature in response to my anti-vandalism activities in other articles. I would appreciate any help in this regard, especially some sort of even short term protection for the article in question. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

is this missing from the list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwa#Bands I see the Grand Traverse Bay Band listed, but not the Little Traverse Bay listed. Can someone clarify this?

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

Thank you! 99.22.220.61 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added it, correct it if needed.99.22.220.61 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring of IPNA.... IPNA/Nish recast?
Question for us all. As topics associated with Indigenous Peoples of the Americas are in need of better attention, IPNA proposes to restructure, bring about a macroproject to cover all of the Americas, create a new Indigenous Peoples of South America project, and have 6 regional subprojects for both, with 2 multi-regional subproject for the reorganized IPNA. The current proposal is to have IPNA/Nish to include all Cree peoples, and then this combined multi-regional subproject, together with a parallel multi-regional subproject covering all the various Dene peoples. Would we here at IPNA/Nish mind broadening of the scope to include all the Cree as well? Please go to WP:IPNA and comment on the project restructuring. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

William Commanda
With the recent passing of Ojigkwanong, an editor have really put a lot of effort in beefing up the stub article, but would like extra eyes to look and massage the article a bit more. Please take a look and provide assistance. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fooling around with it a bit on a sub-thing of my user page (at User:Miskwito/Notes2), to try to tighten it up a bit. Comments etc. of course welcome. --Miskwito (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Welp, I finished experimenting around, and boldly incorporated my changes into the article. Hopefully it's an improvement and I didn't screw up anything too much! --Miskwito (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty No. 3
OK folks, we have some issues with this article and opinions on what to do would be helpful. Currently, the article focuses on the First Nations collectively who are signatories to Treaty 3. The reason for the collective approach is because the Canadian Crown approached the Eastern Saulteaux (i.e. Lac des Bois, Rainy Lake and Rainy River Bands) "... as a Nation...." (Note: the Crown used the singular, not plural.) However, under the current governance system, it is not one Nation but many First Nations. But unlike the historical treaty tribes in the United States, the First Nations in Treaty 3 still closely operates as a near-singlar entity and each of the First Nations therein still behave more as a Band of a Nation rather than a Nation upon themselves. Originally, I had proposed merger of this article with Grand Council of Treaty 3. However, GCT3 as a TPO is council dealing more with a coordinated interaction with the Canadian Crown, government, provinces on a politically, thus not on the peoplehood the article focuses upon. There now is an alternative proposal to "eliminate" this article by growing it to encompass all Anishinaabe First Nations in Canada. Unfortunately, neither sounds like a good solution. What are your opinions on this? CJLippert (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chippewa language and Red Lake
If/when Wikipedia gets a Chippewa language edition (Chippewa is spoken in Red Lake), make sure it has an article on Red Lake, Minnesota related stuff. That includes the massacre perpetrated by Jeff Weise WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lakehead University
What dialect of Ojibwe/Ashinaabe is featured on the campus of en:Lakehead University? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (anti-Indian activist group)
Just ran into this. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Updates
I did some organizing on the Anishinaabe main page and added a considerable number of new links. A good share of the links I placed under the “General” heading though they may be better suited elsewhere. I created a “Tribes/Bands/First Nations -- Reservations” section’’. Information needed in the “Ojibwa”, “Oji-Cree” and “Saulteaux” subsections. I can only claim that the Odawa subsection is correct, but it still requires additional information. I changed the “Language” section to the “Anishinaabe Language” section with lotsa new links. Added an "External Links" section and put two links for seed. Did the same for "Further Reading". After much work I had a lightbulb moment that many of the links may be found in templates so I created a “Templates” section. Denise B-K (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Denisebk

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


 * Denise B-K, I am moving this discussion to the Main project talk page. Tea and crumpets (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Walpole Island First Nation listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Walpole Island First Nation to be moved to Walpole Island. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Changes to Sappony article
An editor has made extensive changes to Sappony which, in part, seem to be trying to add legitimacy to groups that are not recognized as Native American entities by the Federal or state governments. I see many problems with the edits, but don't want to wade into editing the article without a better feel for handling the recently added statements about recognition of Sappony groups. Any opinions or advice? - Donald Albury 22:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Wrong place. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. - Donald Albury 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)