Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 21

U.S. Indian Claims Commission
Dear Wikipedia.

I visited Wikipedia yesterday to refresh my memory on my publications about the U.S. Indian Claims Commission, on microfiche and in print, only to discover the worst article I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. I think it must have been written by someone who knew very little about the Commission, but was part of and loyal to the ASE, since the article seems to focus more on the ASE than on the ICC. For instance, here’s the first two paragraphs:

The Indian Claims Commission was a judicial relations arbiter between the United States federal government and Native American tribes. It was established under the Indian Claims Act in 1946 by the United States Congress to hear any longstanding claims of Indian tribes against the United States.[1] It took until the late 1970s to complete most of them, with the last case finished in the early 21st century. --Norman A. Ross, norman@rosspub.comNorman20c (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The commission was conceived as way to thank Native Americans for their unprecedented service in World War II and as a way to relieve the anxiety and resentment caused by the United States' history of colonization of indigenous peoples. Together with the law, the Commission created a process for tribes to address their grievances against the United States, and offered monetary compensation for territory lost as a result of broken federal treaties. However, by accepting the government's monetary offer, the aggrieved tribe abdicated any right to raise their claim again in the future. On occasion, a tribe gave up federal recognition as part of the settlement of a claim.

1.	What does this mean: a judicial relations arbiter ? The Commission was established by law as a subsidiary of the U.S. Court of Claims. So it was basically a court. 2.	broken federal treaties not true. Primarily the issue was that the treaties were unfair, not broken. 3.	The commission was conceived as way to thank Native Americans for their unprecedented service in World War II and as a way to relieve the anxiety and resentment caused by the United States' history of colonization of indigenous peoples. This is absurd. The bill to create the commission was first submitted to Congress in 1929, after which it was debated and argued until it was passed in 1946, and its purpose was to compensate the tribes for the damage done to them by the Government, which cheated them repeatedly. 4.	On occasion, a tribe gave up federal recognition as part of the settlement of a claim. Although this may be correct, I am not aware of any tribe having to give up its Federal status and I never heard of this any other time, but I am aware that several had to cede more land to get their award. 5.	In the next paragraph the writer states: Anthropologists and ethnologists, historians and legalists, as well as government officials including lawyers, were the dominant researchers, advocates, and legal counsel for the plaintiff tribes and the defendant federal government. What is a ‘legalist’? Lawyers did not do the research. The sentence is a mish-mash. 6.	The greatly expanded amount of anthropological research conducted for the Commission led to the foundation of the American Society for Ethnohistory (ASE). The research and historical reports compiled in evidence for Native American claims was first amassed in 1954 at the inaugural Ohio Valley Historic Indian Conference. Anyone truly interested in the ICC probably wouldn’t find this information very helpful. Furthermore, as the Commission had only begun its work in 1951, how much research could have been amassed in 1954? 7.	A collection of the studies was published in the series "American Indian Ethnohistory" by Garland Publishing in 1974. Garland competed with me directly on this project and cost me a great deal of lost sales, to be honest. In addition, the editor of their series, David Horr, asked me on false pretenses for a list of the expert reports I was filming, and then used it for his project. However, there is no question but that the set of books only scratches the surface of the content of the microfiche collection, and also includes a lot of useless materials, such as reprints of books of camping songs that someone apparently submitted as evidence in one of the California cases.

I created Clearwater Publishing in 1972 on the basis of publishing the records of the ICC, and I spent the next six years working on the project, issuing one set of fiches after another, as well as other books, microfilms, audio cassettes and videocassettes on Native American Studies, working with Princeton, the U. of Arizona, U. of South Dakota, Smithsonian Institution, etc. I have put together a replacement for the article I found yesterday, copy attached. It begins with an article written for me by the Chief Counsel of the ICC and includes some of the material in the present article that seemed relevant. I don’t think I have ever edited an article on Wikipedia and I certainly can’t actually edit this one, which needs to be replaced. I hope you find this helpful. If you need my help, please feel free to let me know. Here's my revised article:

The Indian Claims Commission The following article was written in 1973 by Harry E. Webb, Jr., Chief Counsel of the Indian Claims Commission (edited slightly in 2020). The Indian Claims Commission was created on August 13, 1946. Its purpose was to serve as a tribunal for the hearing and determination of claims against the United States arising prior to August 13, 1946 by any Indian tribe, band or other identifiable group of Indians living in the United States. In this it exercised jurisdiction formerly resting with the United States Court of Claims under the previous system of passing special jurisdictional acts by Congress for individual tribes. Under 28 U.S.C.A. 1/1505 the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over claims arising after August 13, 1946. Under the terms of the original Indian Claims Commission Act there were three Commissioners and a period of ten years in which to complete the work. It became obvious however, from the size and complexity of the cases, that ten years was insufficient. The Commission was extended for five year periods in 1957 and 1962, and in 1967 it was extended a third time and enlarged to five members. Subsequently the staff was increased in size to accommodate the increased workload. The Commission was finally extended to April 10, 1977, and on that date the remaining cases were transferred to the United States Court of Claims. In creating the Indian Claims Commission, Congress broadened the jurisdictional grounds upon which Indian tribes might sue the United States. This wider jurisdiction reflected an awareness of the problems arising from the relations between the United States and the Indians who occupied the lands sought by an expanding nation. Two hundred years of westward expansion produced much conflict and created some of the harsher episodes in the history of America as the United States acquired the Indians' lands. By treatiesBand after 1871 by agreements--the Indians' lands were ceded to the United States and the Indians were moved onto reservations. These cessions are the primary source of the 370 original petitions filed with the Commission prior to the cutoff date of August 13, 1951. (Under the terms of the original Act the Commission could no longer accept new claims after this date.) The 370 original petitions were separated into 611 claims, each of which was given its own docket number. The claims consisted largely of unconscionable consideration claims arising from the cession of aboriginal title lands. The Commission also received claims of uncompensated taking of land, as well as of other wrongs cognizable under the Act. (A determination of unconscionable consideration is a finding that the compensation originally paid by the Government for Indian lands ceded by treaty or agreement was so low when compared to the market value at the time as to shock the conscience and entitle the tribe to recover, subject to gratuitous offsets, if any.) The first four clauses under Section 2 of the Act cover every actionable wrong under law and equity. Clause 5 permits suits on claims based upon fair and honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity. In the trial of these cases the plaintiffs, as permitted by statute, were represented by attorneys of their own choosing under contracts approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative. The United States Government was represented by the Department of Justice. The passage of time since these claims arose in the 18th and 19th centuries created considerable difficulty in establishing the factual background of the claims. In the absence of living witnesses the parties relied upon documentary evidence consisting of available contemporary accounts, as well as historical and ethnological writings and studies. This type of evidence goes to the question of the area occupied by a tribe. This is the first, or "aboriginal title," phase of the typical land cases that were the large majority of the cases filed before the Commission. After the area was determined and the Indians' title established, it was necessary to determine the value of the land and the consideration, if any, given by the defendant (the United States), for the purpose of determining whether it was conscionable or unconscionable. In this second portion of a typical case the parties introduced land appraisal evidence for the purpose of establishing the value of the land on the date it was ceded by the tribe. The third part of the typical case is the determination of all payments made by the United States on the claim, and of any and all offsets, counterclaims and demands claimed by the defendant. Basically, this part of the case is for offsets of land or other items given the tribes by the defendant since the date on which the lands were ceded. The evidence consists of statutes or Executive Orders involving land transfers, and vouchers evidencing payment of money or goods. In many instances the Indians held their lands by recognized or reservation title confirmed by Act of Congress, or had title under an Executive Order of the President. This removes the necessity of proving title, and that step is therefore omitted from the proceedings. Included among the claims were a number of accounting cases wherein the tribes asked that the defendant account to them for its management of their assets. Owing to the nature of the cases their determination was interesting but difficult. Progress was made, however, and more cases were completed by monetary awards in the five fiscal years since 1968 than were completed during the entire preceding life of the Commission. On this basis it is possible to foresee the completion of the remaining cases by April 10, 1977, when the Commission is scheduled to terminate.

Harry E. Webb, Jr., Chief Counsel, Indian Claims Commission Washington, D.C., April 1, 1973 [From AIndex to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission.@ See below.]

The Records of the Indian Claims Commission were published in the 1970s in a series of microfiche collections by Clearwater Publishing Company, New York, NY, under such rubrics as $	The Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission $	The Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission $	Transcripts of Expert Testimony before the Indian Claims Commission $	Legislative History of the Indian Claims Commission $	Docket Books of the Indian Claims Commission

Altogether Clearwater published thousands of microfiches containing the legal briefs, expert testimony, findings and decisions, as well as special documents of the Commission containing their internal records, such as the Journal of the Indian Claims Commission, which recorded the receipt of every individual document deposited. All of the Commission=s documents and records were made available to Clearwater by the Commission, including on its final day in operation (in order to ensure that the microfiche edition would be complete). The microfiches of the ADecisions,@ were published serially as each volume was issued (as a typescript) by the Commission, supplemented by Abstracts written by Frances L. Horn, an attorney with Wilkinson, Cragun &Barker, the firm that represented the largest number of tribes of any one firm, and which lobbied for the passage of the bill from 1929 through 1946. Clearwater also published two books as guides to the collection, AIndex to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission,@ and AIndex to the Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission,@ Norman A. Ross, president of Clearwater, was the editor of both books and the microfiche collections, the latter of which were supplemented by documents lent by Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker and several other law firms around the country that represented various tribes when copies of those documents were missing from the Commission=s own files. In addition, some documents that had been deposited there by the Commission for closed cases were microfilmed for Clearwater by the National Archives. Both index volumes contain a numerical list of all of the dockets as well as a tribal index, both of which were created by the Commission. The Index to the Expert Testimony contains a list of the Written Expert Reports and an author index. Although most courts do not permit written reports as evidence, the Commission ruled that all of the reports submitted by both sides had to be in writing because the contents were too complicated for oral presentation. However, both sides were permitted to cross-examine the witnesses that authored written reports. (Transcripts of the cross-examinations were also published on microfiche.) Land was the dominant concern of the litigation by tribes before the Indian Claims Commission (ICC). The statutory authority did not permit this tribunal to grant or restore land to the tribes, but only to award money based upon a net acreage figure of lost lands times the monetary market value of an acre at the time of taking. This limitation on the authority of the ICC was resented by many tribal peoples, who wanted the return of their lands more than moneyCe.g., the Pit River Indians of northern California, and the Teton and Lakota of the Black Hills, South Dakota. In a few instances, by way of settlement acts, tribes gained some monetary funds to buy acreage when they had no communal land (as with the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy of Maine and the Catawba of the Carolinas). Special congressional acts on occasion did restore some acreage, as with the Havasupai at the Grand Canyon.[6] Anthropologists, ethnologists, geographers, historians and specialists in such subjects as water rights, timber rights and minerals, were employed by the tribes to prove their claims. The Department of Justice defended the Government and hired other researchers in the same fields to counter the tribes= claims. The two sides collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research, resulting in the most well-funded research archive on American Indians ever created Some of the most well-known and highly regarded anthropologists of the period agreed to work for one or the other side. However, many such experts were criticized for their participation, especially those who testified on behalf of the United States, and therefore against the tribes. In preparing expert testimony for litigation brought by the tribes as plaintiffs or for the defense by the U.S. government, researchers explored all forms of data, including the earliest possible maps of original titleCi.e., native or indigenousCterritory and the cartographic presentations based upon treaties, statutes, and executive orders Cgenerally identified as recognized title. In most cases, recognized title lands could be more easily demonstrated in litigation, while native territory depended upon Indian informants, explorers, trappers, military personnel, missionaries and early field ethnographers. Scholars sought to reconstruct native ecology in terms of food supply and other resources of the environment. In this way, some concept of original territory could be gained that could be mapped. As the Final Report of the ICC revealed, compromises over territorial parcels led to rejecting some acreage which had been used by more than one tribe over time.[7] The greatly expanded amount of anthropological research conducted by both sides led to the foundation of the American Society for Ethnohistory (ASE). Some of the research and historical reports compiled in evidence for Native American claims was first collected in 1954 at the inaugural Ohio Valley Historic Indian Conference, the predecessor organization later renamed the ASE. The Commission was adjourned in 1978 by Public Law 94 465,[3] which terminated the Commission and transferred its pending docket of 170 cases to the United States Court of Claims on September 30, 1978. By the time of the Commission's final report, it had awarded $818,172,606.64 in judgments and had completed 546 dockets.[4][5] In 1987 Clearwater sold its microfilms and books to Congressional Information Service (CIS) a division of Elsevier, which in turn sold its microfilm titles to ProQuest 25 years later. All of the microfiches and the two index volumes are available from ProQuest. Garland Publishing, NY, also in the 1970s, published some 200 books that contained a sampling of the written Expert Reports and reprints of some of the books submitted in evidence.

New References Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission. Microfiche. Index. 1. Indians of North America Claims Cases. I. Horn, Frances L., 1915. II. Ross, Norman A., 1942- III. United States. Indian Claims Commission. KF8208 343'.73'025 72 13850 ISBN 0 88354 001 0

Expert Reports before the Indian Claims Commission. Microfiche. Index. 1. Indians of North America Claims Cases. I. Ross, Norman A., 1942- II. United States. Indian Claims Commission. KF8208 343'.73'025 72 13850 ISBN 0 88354 002 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman20c (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mr. Norman, for sharing your thoughts here, but I must say I have concerns about the change you made to the ICC page. As Wikipedia is built upon consensus-based editing, the sudden replacing of an entire article without first discussing the matter on the talk page is considered a breach of proper protocol. Moreover, a large portion of the new article is simply copy-pasted from a different source. Even though you have left citations, Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of copies of other texts. Finally, I am concerned that the repeated discussion of your publishing company within the article creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. I thank you for your interest in contributing to the project, but as things stand I am strongly inclined to revert the ICC article to its previous form pending further discussion and consensus. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted and may rev/delete, as without evidence we assume it's within copyright. It doesn't comply with our guidelines and would need a heavy rewrite. I said in my edit summary "too radical a change, we clearly can't start an article with "The following article was written in 1973 by Harry E. Webb, Jr., Chief Counsel of the Indian Claims Commission (edited slightly in 2020)". It's clearly copied at least in part from elsewhere so possibly copyvio, what are all the "@" symbols for?" The references aren't wikilinked either. Plus there's a clear WP:COI and I think this editor qualifies as a paid editor given the promotion of his books not just here but elsewhere, although I doubt he ever thought about that so I see that as a newbie error (yes, 2011 is a long time ago but he's still a newbie in terms of experience. Note I'll have to rev/del the text he copied above as well. Doug Weller  talk 09:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaúxuma Núpika
Hello. More eyeballs needed at Talk:Transgender history, to improve referencing at Kaúxuma Núpika. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of biological warfare, slavery on Native Americans in the United States
Hello, there is a current discussion on Talk:Native Americans in the United States involving the lead paragraph. Feel free to share your input about the phrasing of the causes of population decline amongst Native Americans due to European colonization.  on camera  20:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for article creation
I am not sure if here is the right place to do so, but I would like to request that this project write an article regarding the public inquiry (Inquiry into Treatment of Innu Children in Care) that the Newfoundland and Labrador government is planning to call on Innu children in foster care. https://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2017/exec/0731n13.aspx https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ottawa-joins-innu-children-inquiry-1.4631576 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/tsakapesh-inquiry-delayed-1.4330358 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/innu-nation-calling-for-inquiry-1.5597959 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/innu-inquiry-children-care-update-1.5363896 https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uprooted/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ottawa-out-innu-foster-care-inquiry-1.4401558 --User19004 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian ice cream (Alaska), Akutaq
Hi, all. There is a proposal to merge the two articles above, please see Talk:Akutaq in the event you can help advise whether they should be merged or not. -sche (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of honorary Native Americans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of honorary Native Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of honorary Native Americans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Questionable edits to Theresa Spence and her hunger strike
An editor has revived the old debate about her hunger strike. see the edit summaries for the reasons they've been reverted by me and another editor. I could have gone to BLPN but this seems more suitable. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dhegihan History and Separation
This poor article, Dhegihan History and Separation, either needs some attention or to be put out of its misery—unsure which route is wiser. I see what they were trying to do but their information is sketchy as best. Anyone here versed on the subject? Yuchitown (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown

Proposed text revisions on Canada page
Hello! I'm writing to flag a discussion taking place over on Talk:Canada regarding proposed text revisions to manner in which Indigenous peoples in Canada are referred. I've tapped myself out of the discussion, but input from this group would be appreciated. --Dnllnd (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous people in Oconee Valley continued to live and actively resist European influence for nearly 150 years.
This is about the Dyar site. New finding announce this month show that "indigenous people in Oconee Valley — present-day central Georgia — continued to live and actively resist European influence for nearly 150 years." “The case study presented in our paper reframes the historical contexts of early colonial encounters in the Oconee Valley by way of highlighting the longevity and endurance of Indigenous Mississippian traditions and rewriting narratives of interactions between Spanish colonizers and Native Americans,” Lulewicz said. - main article at. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate category needs cleanup
Why do we still have Category:American people of Native American descent? If people can't name a Nation, it can't be verified that they are descendants. If they are just stating that they believe they have some kind of generic "Native American" ancestry, they belong in Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. If their Nation is known, and sourceable to WP:RS standards for tribal identity, then they belong in that subcategory, not in a general "Native American" one. Anyone have some time to clean this up? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Salutations
I am a member of the very small Cherokee community here on wikipediachr. I haven't been a member for long but I noticed a need for cleaning up and providing some citations for articles on English Wikipedia concerning the Cherokee. I am not interested in changing very much of what is presented, only bringing credibility through first-hand knowledge, research and documented reliable sources to areas that need it. I have started with this article as it appears in very bad need of citations. I am very new to the community but am very passionate about the preservation of all American Indian cultures so I am willing to assist anyone and everyone with this project. Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cherokee calendar (Verify)
I have cleaned up/added to this article. I would very much appreciate an admin for the project or another editor look over the article and concur that all criteria has been met. If so, we can remove it from the Expert Needed category. Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at your edits, tidied up some formatting (for instance, placing in-line citations after commas, colons, and other punctuation), and removed the maintenance tags. Nice work!James Hyett (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It is definitely better than it was when I found it. Good teamwork produces an outstanding product. :) Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessment
Indian hospital has been assessed and can be removed from the To do list.Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks list
This list of Native American women is a WP:Women in Red list of people with no known article on Wikipedia. I spotted a couple that did exist under different names and created appropriate redirects. If others can also look over the list to see if others have articles that can be redirected, that would be great. And as always, of course, creating new articles! Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll help look over the list. I've never created an article myself but will assist in turning those names blue and sharing these life songs with others.Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Squaw - editor removing sources, usual misinformation being added
Need more eyes on Squaw. These are all issues we've dealt with before. Though the claim that blanking sources has anything to do with improving WP's "voice" is a new one. As is the claim that a published, hardcopy book, "failed verification." - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Same deal but now on Squaw Valley Ski Resort. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Durbin Feeling
Could someone have a look at this draft and try to engage the author? It's a great subject for an article, but the draft is in very poor shape. I tried to help the author, but s/he reverted all my changes. On the talk page, s/he has a lot of misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll see what I can do to help you.Tsistunagiska (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you wrote a wonderful note, but I guess nothing was going to help. I'm working on the draft to get it ready to published, in any event... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten and published the article. Even found a PD high-school yearbook photo in the national archives! It would great for WP:DYK if someone wants to shepherd it through the process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you wrote a wonderful article. It's a true tribute to a great man who dedicated his life to the preservation and teaching of the Cherokee language. I wish we could have gotten him to help with the Cherokee Wikipedia. I've done a lot of research on Mr. Feeling and even used his lessons in learning Cherokee myself. His life was a remarkable song and still lingers with us. I'm very glad to have been able to listen to it.Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tsistunagiska. One more question for you. Someone added a transliteration of his Cherokee name into the Latin alphabet. I'm not sure that's appropriate given that the Cherokee name may itself be a back-construction from English. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me look into it. I would agree that a transliteration of the Cherokee name into Latin probably isn't appropriate as he never used that form of his name.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tsistunagiska, I went ahead and translated the article into French and linked it up with the other translations. Thanks so much for creating it and being such a terrific contributor to this project! Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * created the article. She did a masterful job of it too!:) Amazing article to honour an equally amazing man and his contributions to the preservation of a language and culture. Thank you for translating it into French.Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, yikes. Let's hope I did a better job of translating than I did of remembering basic facts. Thanks Calliope! Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked it over. You did well. I just wanted to make sure the proper person got the credit she deserved. My role was as support. She did a great job and wrote an amazing article.Tsistunagiska (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Deletion discussion of interest to project members here: Articles for deletion/Native Americans and horses. Montanabw (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion
It's been a couple days but seems pretty cut-and-dry, could do with some eyes from this project. Redirects_for_discussion James Hyett (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments requested
Please come and make your voice heard at Talk:Eskimo. Trying to discuss what, if anything, direction the article should take. I have notified all projects listed at the top of Talk:Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That one keeps coming around again and again. I spent a month of my life that I’ll never get back trying to settle that dispute in a previous round. sigh.   Montanabw (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Some Inuit tribes do view it as a racial slur. Is it a consensus? No. Some don't mind. It could also depend on the geographic location of the tribe. It is a slur to some and ok to others. I just stay away from it altogether, typically, as I have to deal with the Inuit and Athabascan people all the time.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed move
At Talk:Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, if anyone is interested. Yuchitown (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * We are basically at a stand still with the proposed move of this article to an appropriately named title so as to expound upon the fact that it addresses three independent groups and not just the NCNOLT. There are three for and three against the move. If a consensus can not be met within 24 hours I will begin removing portions of the article that are blatantly false and those that do not have referenced sources. At that point you can do whatever you want with the article. It will be gutted and won't make any sense by then anyway.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Towns/Villages
Would American Indian towns and Indigenous towns at large be considered under the scope of this project and therefore have the project template added to the talk page?Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found my answer and just did it. I am still digging for Cherokee towns found on Wikipedia but I have linked most to the Cherokee template. You can find it at the bottom of most articles about or related to the Cherokee now.Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationality: Mohawk or Canadian?
Hello everyone -- I wondered if I could ask for some guidance. I'm a non-Indigenous editor who has been working on bringing Mary Two-Axe Earley up to GA status. Two-Axe Earley was a 20th-century women's rights activist from the Kahnawake (Mohawk) reserve in Quebec, Canada, and her article currently describes her as a Mohawk activist from Canada (rather than "a Canadian activist"). The article was created by somebody else, and I chose to leave that descriptor in the lead, but I recently had a discussion with another editor who wanted to know why. My reasoning was this: I wasn't sure whether we could assume Two-Axe Earley identified as Canadian or had Canadian citizenship. I'm now hoping to get some advice (confirmation or correction!) from more knowledgeable editors. Is my approach to this nationality question reasonable? Are there any Wikipedia guidelines or discussions that might help clarify things further? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You raise a very excellent question. In both the US and Canada, if you live on an indigenous reservation and/or are a member of an indigenous tribe then you have the right to dual citizenship but I have found a large number self identify as citizens of their respective tribe. I, personally, believe that it should be left as is unless we have an attributable statement where she claims to be Canadian over being Mohawk. One could look at who she was an activist for to find the answer as well. Was she advocating for all Canadians or the Mohawk specifically. An outstanding question to pose. Thank you for contributing.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * that's interesting -- do you know when the dual citizenship right was implemented in Canada? Two-Axe Earley was primarily advocating for First Nations women (who were treated unfairly under the government's Indian Act), and she spent decades working to regain her own legal right to live and participate in reserve life -- so from that angle I think it definitely makes sense to focus on her identity as a Mohawk. Thanks for the response! Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 declared that non-citizen Indians present in the United States were to be granted citizenship so long as it does not conflict with tribal law/citizenship. But that's in the US.
 * In Canada, citizenship of "aboriginals" was regulated first by the Citizen Act of 1946 which has been amended and repealed/replaced by acts of the same name all the way up to 2017/2018. It is a bit ambiguous but appears that early on it only pertained to Status Indians. Post 1947 and with subsequent amendments/versions of the law that seems to have been corrected so that ALL indigenous peoples may have dual citizenship in both Canada and their Native tribe.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To add this interesting fact, if you are a citizen of a tribal nation whose territorial reservation crosses the border between Canada and the US, you are free to move between the two Nations with little more than a piece of paper stating you are at least 50% Indigenous and a member of that tribe. That was secured in the Jay Treaty between Great Britain and the United States back when Canada was still a British colony/protectorate and according to US immigration is still valid today. That could have been amended or further agreements made between the US and Canada but it is currently on the US Immigration web portal.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * has it pretty much right regarding Canadian Indigenous "citizenship". There's no legal concept of "tribal citizenship" in Canada like there is in the US. The concept of Indian status was first defined by the Canadian government under the Indian Act (1897), but that concept is obviously an imposition by the federal government and is in some cases at odds with First Nations' own concepts of membership. All this to say: there's no cut and dry answer. My inclination is that, given the term is "nationality" rather than "citizenship", there is leeway for how individuals identify, and it certainly doesn't hurt to be more inclusive in these ambiguous and highly politicised cases.James Hyett (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Four Guns

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Articles for deletion
 * AfD was opened on 30 September
 * Result was keep


 * This one didn't get much attention but maybe some additional sources can be provided to bring about a better consensus. The arguments against were somewhat weak so their opinion, potentially, could be altered with further references. It's worth looking into.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A proposed merge/redirect was opened on this article on Oct 8th at 22:43 (UTC).
 * Links: (recent AFD, discussion w/closer)
 * closed as Keep Original closing.
 * Proposed Merge Proposed merge/redirect discussion --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Cherokee related articles
The Cherokee navigation point template has been substantially upgraded to include a wide range of topics related to the Cherokee people. Most if not all related articles have been given a nav point at the bottom of the article. There may be some who specialize in categories and so I wanted to inform you of this in case you wanted to take a look at updating categories specific to Cherokee related articles. My next target is going through and adding references to the Cherokee names for each town associated with the Cherokee people, primarily the old Cherokee Nation prior to the Removal. I have a list from a land grant in 1734 I am working with as a basis and will use it in conjunction with a map, provided by the Cherokee Nation, of Cherokee territory in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina prior to the Removal and leading up to it. If anyone on this project is interested in collaborating on the Cherokee project I am currently engaged in I would welcome the inclusion of as many as would like to participate with me. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Correcting tense in sections on Indigenous people's usage of plants
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but I spend a lot of time on the Wikipedia pages of different plants, particularly those native to North America, due to personal interest. I've found that a lot of them have sections about Native people's usages of plants for food/medicinal/fiber/other purposes, which I think is really good. However, it seems to be the default that those discussions are written in the past tense (i.e. "the Haida used its berries to make a purple dye"). While there might be a few cases where these usages truly are no longer practiced, that definitely shouldn't be the default assumption. I think it would be worthwhile to go through and change all of these sections to use present-tense language, unless there's solid evidence that the relevant practice is no longer done. Does that make sense? Also, is this the appropriate project for this, or should I post elsewhere? Thanks all for your help. Aquaticonions (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps leave the time frame open. "(i.e. "the Haida have traditionally used berries to make a purple dye").-- Moxy 🍁 03:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Moxy's suggestion seems like a good compromise unlikely to result in people accusing any such edits of being not NPOV. Thanks for bringing this up ! It might be worth bringing this up at WikiProject Plants if you haven't already. James Hyett (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Love suggestion and join  in thanking you for bringing it up, . I still use some of these plants today for various purposes. We still have quite a few medicine men and women here in the US.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for the suggestions! I agree that suggestion for the neutral language to use- I'll start using that as well. I'm going to head over to the WikiProject Plants talk page and make this same suggestion. Aquaticonions (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

One Who Walks with the Stars

 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed with a Keep verdict stating that the sources added were sufficient to meet the guidelines.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed with a Keep verdict stating that the sources added were sufficient to meet the guidelines.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty Nose

 * Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination) ‎ AFD discussion
 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. AfD is currently in the process of being closed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed as a keep on day 16. Discussion was heated at times with both sides making valid arguments for or against keeping. In the end it was deemed that the overwhelming consensus was to keep the article. Anyone is encouraged to find and add verifiable sources to further bolster the evidence of notability. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A DRV was initiated on this article on Oct. 14th. Currently being discussed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A DRV was initiated on this article on Oct. 14th. Currently being discussed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Coyote

 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed as a Delete despite the majority consensus being a Keep as shown above. A request was made to restore the article and allow us to add more sources to further bolster notability.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has been turned into a draft here. Please review it and add any sources you may be able to find to help bolster notability if there are any. Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed as a Delete despite the majority consensus being a Keep as shown above. A request was made to restore the article and allow us to add more sources to further bolster notability.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has been turned into a draft here. Please review it and add any sources you may be able to find to help bolster notability if there are any. Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Many Horses

 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. Request made for it to remain open as a potential source is being reviewed. -- Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed on October 17th as delete. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. Request made for it to remain open as a potential source is being reviewed. -- Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed on October 17th as delete. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.

 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. It is well past the 7 days considered standard for AfD's to remain open. Current vote is: Keep-9, Delete-4, Redirect-1 Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed as a Keep.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was opened on the 25th of August. It is well past the 7 days considered standard for AfD's to remain open. Current vote is: Keep-9, Delete-4, Redirect-1 Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD was closed as a Keep.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Minnie Hollow Wood

 * Current AfD was closed with the consensus being a Keep.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Current AfD was closed with the consensus being a Keep.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Current AfD was closed with the consensus being a Keep.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Rattling Blanket Woman

 * Consensus was to Merge current article with that of Crazy Horse, her son.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to Merge current article with that of Crazy Horse, her son.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to Merge current article with that of Crazy Horse, her son.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mark Soldier Wolf
This one was kept, nomination withdrawn, but it provides context. Massive attack (not the band) on Native American participants. Questions of sourcing and notability. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for input on "bug"
Hello! I recently noticed that the pages that use should probably be changed over to use  with yes, since  suppresses any importance ranking (see for instance Talk:Zebulon Pike which has  with low but shows up as ???). I began a section on the broader template's talk page, after that was suggested to me on the AWB task I had requested to do this job. I'd appreciate if some more template-savvy members of this WikiProject could weigh in.

What I think should be done is that all pages that currently use should be changed over to  with yes, and that  should be deleted, since it is redundant.James Hyett (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just pinging this again to see if anyone had any more insight, or if I should go ahead with requesting the AWB task again. James Hyett (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you request a bug-fix at Village pump (technical)? They can help with that.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not, thanks for the tip! James Hyett (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Have a question
I am not an archaeologist or even a geologist so I have a question. What would you say is the water table line 100 feet from a river or major stream in North Carolina or northern Georgia? How far would you have to dig before hitting some kind of water? --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked this question was because there is an incorrect assumption, made by very intelligent people and one I have seen echoed on Wikipedia, that the Cherokee were not mound builders. While I don't know that they built multiple mounds within a village like the Mississippian and subsequent Muscogean/Creeks did, they were mound builders as explained by James Mooney in the journal, American Anthropologist Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1889), pp. 167-171. That is not to say every mound in the old Cherokee territory is of Cherokee origins,[not according to the article you cite in The Citizen Times, Parkwells] only to say the assumption that the Cherokee did not build mounds is incorrect. Of note, there is a mound on the Biltmore Estate grounds in Asheville, North Carolina. This mound is of Cherokee origins. It was a Town house or Council house location meant to be the geographical center of a town but also the center of politics and religious ceremonies. A mound was built and a pit dug in the center where the embers of the Sacred Fire were kept lit during each ceremony season. A chimney made from a hollowed out tree trunk was fashioned to carry the smoke from the fire pit out of the town house. At the time of ceremonies embers were brought to the surface to light the Sacred Fire used during the ceremonies. This was the way the ancient Cherokee built their towns and their town houses. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted this on Talk:Cherokee history to further illustrate the above:
 * The article states that the Cherokee did not build mounds but that isn't necessarily true. James Mooney discussed mound building in his journals on the Cherokee people and actually interviewed Cherokee who remember and explained in detail how a mound was built. I am not saying that the Cherokee built mounds like others did but to say they didn't build mounds is incorrect. There are plenty of examples of Cherokee mounds.


 * Watauga Mound -
 * Nikwasi Mound -
 * Kituwah Mound -
 * Cowee Mound -
 * Biltmore Mound (called Untokiasdiyi by the Cherokee) -
 * (This is a great article if you want to see how these assertions were fabricated and pervaded the scientific/political sphere at the time and now) -
 * Cherokee Mounds in Western North Carolina -
 * James Mooney on Cherokee mound building -
 * I can keep going but this should at least show that this notion that Cherokee did not build mounds or utilize them has been a historical fallacy that was initiated as a reason to justify American Indian removal from their territory. The same was employed against the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and others. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish I had anything substantive to add to this, but what I can add is encouragement that this should be corrected! It seems fairly cut and dry that any statement along the lines of "the Cherokee did not build mounds" is just false. James Hyett (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , to be honest, just from what I can tell, at some point they moved away from it, probably once their towns and villages started being destroyed by encroaching Europeans but may have stopped being used even before that. They had to be pretty mobile and so they built council houses where they could be taken apart and moved most likely. Definitely by the time of the Removal they ceased building council houses on mounds. Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't set out to prove this as fact but after reading several media articles on how the EBCI is actually buying these lands back, including the mound in Asheville (North Carolina), I started researching it deeper and connecting the dots. I agree that the results are nearly irrefutable. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If is still with us on Wikipedia I would love to have their input as they were the one who added the statement to the article in May of this year. Perhaps they have sources to counter what I posted and we can compare them and come to a conclusion whether it should or shouldn't be included. Perhaps we can develop a more neutral POV within the article. There is no doubt that the Etowah mounds were Muskcogean. I addressed that on Talk:Etowah Indian Mounds. But the mounds located in the articles above belong to the Cherokee and were utilized by them. Archaeologist have found their fire pits in the center of these mounds and they are covered with Cherokee artifacts. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Response and other parts of thread moved to Talk:Cherokee historyParkwells (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a project talk page, not your user talk page. Please leave our comments here for others in this project to see it. Thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Honouring Indigenous Writers (University of British Columbia Event)
Hello! For the past 2 years, the University of British Columbia has been running an annual Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. In the past, this has been an in-person event where people gather together in a room to edit and create Wikipedia articles for Indigenous authors. This year meeting in person is impossible, so we are busy planning out what we can do to have an online event focusing specifically on local Indigenous authors in BC, Canada. I was wondering whether or not there's any official way for our event to coincide or line up with any of the projects that this group is working on? Aquilessa (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal
Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-sourced edits
, I asked for your input in a discussion to build a consensus. Instead you have went on a personal crusade through articles on Cherokee topics and repeated your non-sourced statements without building a consensus. That flies in the face of the purpose of Wikipedia. Something is not true because you keep repeating it. You have repeated your claims on Cherokee history, Nikwasi (Cherokee town), Kituwa, Too-Cowee and even tried to discredit the evidence I provided about Biltmore by stating something was within the source but it is not stated as you claim. I am not stupid. I know the sources I provide and have read them extensively. You also completely ignored the words of the Cherokee in that article when presenting your beliefs. I want to believe there is good faith on your part so prove that when making edits. Maintain a neutral POV and source your edits please. As a side note, I also do not appreciate you moving content from here to another location. This provides confusion when other editors are looking for the full conversation. I chose to bring my question here because it affects the information provided over many articles on Wikipedia, not just one. The coversation should have remained here and I will move the pertinent information back here as I wrote it. If you want to leave your responses on the respective talk page and refer to them then so be it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was confused about your accusations, because you say that original builders and the historic Cherokee users were the same, but not everyone agrees on the terminology. I was trying to clarify the issues, and going back to the sources on these articles to do that. Please note that the caption of Nikwasi Mound, in the Charlotte Observer cite you use, says that it was built "by ancestors of the Cherokee." If the interpretation is to be that ancestral peoples of the Middle Woodland and Mississippian periods are the same as historic Cherokee, for the purposes of saying that Nikwasi, Kituwa, and Biltmore were Cherokee mounds, then it would have been useful to say so. They all were used, maintained and considered sacred by the Cherokee, as I fully acknowledged in the Talk page on another WP article Cherokee history. As I noted in another place, I was reading a different Citizen Times on Biltmore than you cited, and got confused, leading to some of the discussion below.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is not consensus in sources that all those mounds are only Cherokee. I did quote sources, including, specifically, the source you used about the Biltmore mound.(This was my error; it was another Citizen Times article on this topic.) It said that the Cherokee claimed Pisgah Phase as ancestral, but also said that little to no historic Cherokee artifacts were found at Biltmore or in the county, as I quoted. I included it in the response so other editors could read it. You have provided no source for saying that "this notion that Cherokee did not build mounds or utilize them has been a historical fallacy that was initiated as a reason to justify American Indian removal from their territory." My edits were attempts to clarify the articles, not to assert a POV. I was working on each article because each mound has a different history, and I wanted to try to ascertain what that was, before returning to a general discussion. Parkwells (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of your claims were cited using in-line references. I checked each one and if there is any doubt anyone can review the history. You projected a false narrative in even quoting the article on the Biltmore Mound by stating that there were claims made that were not made within the written article. You dismissed everything the Cherokee and others have offered as evidence within the articles provided above. Every source above states that the Cherokee claim these mounds as sacred places and they claim ancestral connections with the original people who built them. Again, I simply want both sides presented. You are the one who only wants one side presented. In the Biltmore article, Barbara Duncan, education director for the Museum of the Cherokee Indian, stated "Archaeologists can only dig for the technology, not for language or culture." She said this directly in response to Cherokee officials asking why these towns and mounds are not being called Cherokee towns. It is Euro-Americans who categorized these cultures and phases. It is Euro-Americans who labeled them, and for the most part named them. It does not make them right. You assert that they are "most likely" or "believed" to be correct, passing off their studies as more facts than interpretations, and dismissing the traditional stories of the Cherokee which are just as valid. Scholars get things wrong too. I have offered sources above which bring everything into question. Saying something on a talk page does not make it a source for you to change wording in a particular article and your word alone does not constitute a consensus. That is why I offered sources and fostered discussion. I made no changes to any articles pushing one narrative over another. You plowed through everything with your own beliefs to push your own point of view without consensus. That is more concerning than anything I have said. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I respectfully request that you please re-instate my comments that you removed from this page. I do not understand the deletion(s).   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 19:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I restored them for you. I assume it was just a mistake made in good faith. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an error made in good faith.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples under attack
There is a concerted effort to delete a lot of articles on American Indians and Indigenous People of North America right now. I am not an alarmist and I don't believe that these attacks are malicious in intent but they are very real. For now it is centered around the Oglala Sioux and Cheyenne but could easily move to other tribes and nations. I do not believe that the guidelines of Wikipedia were meant to be weapons of exclusion when they were created, however, the guidelines are leaving room for those with their own personal opinion of rigidity to apply it with strict adherence, in the case of Indigenous People, and with no regard for the historical bias against them. They do not attack other articles, of the same caliber and similar topics, with the same ferocity as they do against these that have been nominated. It is quite disturbing as a descendant of American Indians myself, who can trace back my ancestry to those who walked the Trail of Tears. I am not asking Wikipedia to wright wrongs against Indigenous People. NO ONE here is at fault for what our ancestors may have or did do. It is about doing what is right now, not correcting what was done in the past. Please review these articles and please vote. If you don't feel like you can support these articles and regardless whether you agree or not, please support those who do vote on them. Kind words go a long way. I am a WARRIOR so I will fight when there is a just reason to. Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about this when a small group decided to deleted the article which was written about myself. I mentioned many other articles which in my opinion had lesser notability (by Wikipedia standards) than the one which was written about me. None of those articles were even put up for consideration. During the article's evaluation period, one editor removed items from the article. I asked if that should be done while the entire article was under consideration, they said it was "appropriate" and "warned" me not to return the material. Later, one editor "warned" me it would violate the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest code if I edited anything about Cherokees, since I am Cherokee. I was also specifically warned about editing things regarding a former Cherokee Principal Chief, because I knew him. I was only making factual changes which could be verified elsewhere. Being a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, it would be hard not to know any current or former Chief. I can understand if this was an opinion piece. But, being challenged for changing a date seems overly contentious. People with English ancestry certainly edit things regarding English people. People from Texas are not prohibited from editing things about Texas. I have no problem with most Wikipedia editors. It just strikes me as odd that some editors certainly seem to work together in certain areas. Phil Konstantin (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Phil Konstantin
 * I just want someone to tell me that I can't create, edit or comment on Cherokee related articles because my heritage and ancestry is Cherokee. There is nothing that I have created or added that can not be sourced or verified. Our greatest enemy today, being descendants of and ourselves as American Indians, is the ignorance of those who simply are incapable of understanding the historical bias. I believe most of it is not malicious, today, but there is an element that definitely has malicious intent.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, there is an appeal process for any closed discussion here at Wikipedia. If what you are saying is true, and that apparent prejudice actually affected the outcome of the AfD, appealing the closure is an avenue you may be interested in.  There is also a Manual of Style which must be adhered to as far as article content, and that stuff can be confusing and/or intimidating to a casual editor here, especially in a COI situation.  So, that said, if you need additional guidance regarding an article in your sandbox or at draft, let me or another experienced editor review it for you first and offer suggestions.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GenQuest. Phil Phil Konstantin (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New film article - Women of the White Buffalo
I created a new article about the documentary film, Women of the White Buffalo. Let me know if you want to help with further research, Right cite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

a project edited only by the elders of each specific tribe
Hi, Let me start by saying that I have profound respect for Wikipedia. I also saw a few projects dedicated to improve the knowledge on native peoples.

However, I wonder if it would be possible and if you would agree there is a need (unless I missed a project that do so) for a project about each native tribe edited only by the elders of this nation? No need for much references but more like the way the tribe would like it to be told.

Although not a native myself, I have a few contacts and talking with them it seems they would agree that a Wikipedia project would be the best place.

Also, there should be the option for them to keep it private at least until they agree to make it public. Is that an option? Thanks

Yannick Neveux Founder and partner of Antinanco & TropicForest 501(c)3 Non-profits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannickneveux (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me start off by saying that I do have an American Indian heritage and have worked with multiple Nations in the US so I have a deep and profound respect for all things Indigenous and Native. That being said, it would be better for those tribal elders to purchase a website for themselves and hire someone to build it as they want it. Anyone is welcome to edit on any of these projects, including anonymously, and while they do have protected articles I haven't seen many if any protected articles on Indigenous People's of North America. It's possible they may have or can have their language added to and fill that wiki with articles in their native tongue but the request is not likely on the English version of Wikipedia, from what I can tell. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A number of tribes, including my own, have worked with historians to publish the history of their reservation/tribe as told by their elders to be taught in their tribal colleges. Wikipedia serves a purpose but it's more important for elders to use their time to teach the future generations of their own people without the need for outsiders to edit their work the way Wikipedia operates. oncamera   (talk page)  02:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Tahquitz (disambiguation)
Members of this project might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Cornstalk / Hokoleskwa burial site
Please see this discussion and comment there: --David Tornheim (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Cornstalk

American Revolutionary War has an RFC
American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Proposed move of Zuni
There is currently a discussion regarding a proposal to move the page Zuni which may be of interest to this WikiProject. The discussion is taking place HERE. Netherzone (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas
, I see you have been adding this portal back to many of the pages that it was removed from. However, there have been no changes to the portal since April. There haven't been many improvements, and there are also formatting issues, at least on my end, with the page not wrapping/scaling properly. I don't recall where things left off with the portal discussions on overhaul, but if there was a consensus on beginning to add them back, I must have missed it. Thoughts, project members? Is this portal ready to be added to articles? Right now, I'm not really convinced it's in a condition to be added. Either way, is anyone interested in improving it? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Very sorry. I have to confess, I was not much aware of "portals" until recently when someone added a pair of them to an article I'd edited. I've been working on a series of 8-10 articles about Native Americans in Chicago. When I saw that there was a indigenous peoples portal, I thought it would be helpful to add it. My assumption was wrong, obviously. Nigetastic (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor on a campaign to replace the word "Indian" with "Native American"
See User talk:Doug Weller, Talk:List of Indian massacres and edit summaries here.. are you going to try to do this for all articles? Your motivation seems to be your edit summary which says that "The term Indian overwhelming refers to Indian citizens and it's diaspora, instead of indigenous Americans" whichh doesn't seem a satisfactory reason. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a descendant of American Indian's, many citizens of native nations in the United States prefer the use of the term "American Indian" over "Native American" or "Indigenous American's" simply because anyone born in the US is considered a natural citizen and the "N.A." term can be used to describe any number of groups of people. We do not see the use of "Indian" to be derogatory or negative, in and of itself. It's more about the way it's used and the character of the person using it. I can tell you that Doug is a very conscious person and understands the complexities of interacting with various cultures. The term "Indian" was placed on those living in the America's by European explorers and colonist. Obviously we are not from India but to say we can't use the term to refer to ourselves is a disservice to our historical importance in the America's and the US specifically. Being called an American Indian or Indian has done nothing to diminish the significance of India or its people from ancient times to the present, nor should it. The reverse can be said as well. Let's leave it that way, please and thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As an enrolled member of a Native American tribe, I'm not a fan of the word Indian being applied to us. Absolutely none of my Native friends or family do either, so I don't think it's true that "many" Natives that actually prefer that anymore when speaking of themselves. I'd say it's almost more of tribal and federal government archaic term at this point. oncamera   (talk page)  15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I respect your position and we can agree to disagree as I have with many others. I am an enrolled member too and I can tell you that many do associate themselves as American Indians. It doesn't surprise me that you, your family and the friends you associate with refer to yourselves as Native Americans and that's ok. You have that right and I celebrate it with you. However, assuming all Indigenous peoples want that term used to identify them in a broad sense is a continuation of discrimination, not the opposite. In fact, as late as the early 2000's, according the US Census Bureau, nearly 50% of those identifying as Indigenous preferred the term "American Indian" while 40% preferred "Native American" and the rest preferred a different term or no term at all. The number has fluctuated throughout the last 20 years but all three terms are considered acceptable. Let me state that I am not opposed to the use of Native American or Indigenous American. My point is, why should only one voice be heard? I disagree with replacing the term Indian with Native American in all instances. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Native Americans are by far the most undercounted people when it comes to the census, especially on reservations, so I do not think that is the only source we should use when it comes to rationalizing the use of the term. oncamera   (talk page)  16:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So your answer is to discount those who do associate themselves as American Indians just because you don't use or prefer the term? That's your answer? I prefer to listen to all sides and respect all views without disenfranchising any who are willing to keep an open mind. If you want to associate as Native American, then do you. There are a number of articles here on Wikipedia that use the term to identify the native population in the US and I am not trying to change the term used there. But it is not the only appropriate term and I refuse to discriminate against or disenfranchise those, some of whom I know personally, who, like myself, use these other terms to identify themselves. To change or alter the knowledge of history just because you don't like what someone said or because you don't prefer a specific term is not the answer to anything. The fact is that none of the terms used today were used historically by natives. Almost all of them associated with their respective tribal nations and clans but some terms were used by others and have historical significance, even if a majority disagree with their usage today. "Native American" is a term that was created in the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement. "American Indian" was used before the 1960's and has stayed relevant since among many, yes, many nations and tribes, and "Indian" has been used for over 500 years to describe natives in the western hemisphere. Recently, from about 2010 on, "Indigenous" has become another popular descriptive term used. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is being "discounted" by using either term, don't waste my time trying to argue things that I'm not implying or trying to imply. When I mentioned Natives being undercounted by the census, that is exactly what I mean and doesn't have anything to do with "discounted". Many Natives' opinions on the terms were not included in the census because they were literally not included by not being counted, therefore, I don't think the statistics on that poll accurately reflect the real numbers. oncamera   (talk page)  18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What it does mean is that, no matter how it is spun, a large percentage prefer to identify as something other than Native American. That is a fact. The part about discounting had nothing to do with your census comment but from your disregard of my usage of the word "many". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How we formally and publicly name ourselves is a good way to understand local Indigenous perspectives on the term Indian. The List of federally recognized tribes in the United States provides good examples of how Native peoples within the United States use the term. Yuchitown (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * See also Talk:List of Indian massacres. On the issue, I was told decades ago that there was a regional element to it but have no idea if that's true. Doug Weller  talk 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not Native American, I do my best to stay acquainted with other cultures. I have read Native American writers like Leslie Marmon Silko, whose excellent fiction work Almanac of the Dead has Native American activists who plan to retake the Americas (both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border) from European conquerors. Louise Erdrich's The Night Watchman (2020) is also excellent.  As is the work of Sherman Alexie, whose short stories were made into the movie Smoke Signals (film).  The book Killers of the Flower Moon covers the Osage Indian murders--the murder of Osage tribal members in order to steal their land for resources.  I am also familiar with colonialism and imperialism that continues to this day, where indigenous people's lands have been and continue to be sought for their natural resources and sovereign nations' governments are undermined by the U.S. and other countries (e.g. United States involvement in regime change).
 * Given my limited knowledge, I do consider the term "Indian" alone to refer to Native Americans--as in "Cowboys and Indians"--to be problematic. I agree with  that it is archaic, being based on Columbus's foolishness and reliance on bad science to think he had circumnavigated the globe.  Columbus was no friend of Native Americans, sending slaves back to England for profit.  Why we have statues of him in the U.S. or a holiday to honor him is beyond me. I agree calling the D.C. football team "Redskins" is racist.  It's taken the U.S. a long time to reflect on it's genocidal past, accept that the conquered peoples were not inferior, and learn from it moving forward.
 * That said, I do believe American Indian is still accepted and I respect the opinion of . San Francisco State University has an American Indian Studies program.    The first article that came up when I googled it was in Oprah magazine  (not WP:RS) claims that it depends who you ask what term is best, as we see above.  I have asked my Native American friends what they think.
 * I think it would be better if we used either Native American -or- American Indian -or- Indigenous peoples of North America, rather than simply "Indian". I think the Indian from India has a point.
 * We should also be looking at the best more recent WP:RS that covers this. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful remarks, . I very much respect OnCamera too. I don't see us being on different sides. Where we may disagree, and I would love further discussion about it, is if, how or when to apply these terms. We are not enemies and I simply adore OnCamera and highly respect their ancestral heritage. I have and would again stand with them in defense of their history being preserved. I just feel that if we start opening these articles up to the change that is being prescribed, it will cause further division. What term gets used? We can't have a title that includes all three, nor should we be encumbered with the task of using all three terms every time we refer to ourselves or our ancestors in a general setting. But to only use one would disenfranchise those who choose not to associate with those terms. I'll be honest, I don't really use Indigenous People of North America outside the actual project here. That is why, as often as I can I prefer to associate with my tribe or clan where applicable. However, in the context of article creation I think it should be left up to whomever creates the article. I won't argue against using any of the three. In the context of this particular article I don't think anything should change. Keep it as is. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect the views of all the concerned editors, including even Vajra Raja, with whom I disagree. I am a small part Cherokee, but I don't believe that means I can speak for Cherokees or other native peoples in the US. Speaking merely as a Wikipedia editor, I think Tsistunagiska has made a Solomonic suggestion: accept the fact that natives have various opinions regarding the matter, and leave it up to whomever creates the article to set the precedent of usage for that particular article. Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the responses. To clarify:  Above when I said, "either Native American -or- American Indian -or- Indigenous peoples of North America", I meant any of the three as is appropriate.  And I did not mean to suggest that it is an absolute rule, but instead as a guideline that it is preferable to use one of these over "Indian" alone.  It would be similar to use of gender-free language as preferable to calling an editor "he" when you do not know the gender.  I got some responses to my Native American friends.  I'll see if I can post them here.
 * As for allowing editors to decide the title, editors often come up with objectionable, cumbersome and confusing titles for countless reasons, and we often change them. For titles of articles we have to stick to the WP:RS and the policy WP:TITLE.  I haven't carefully reviewed WP:TITLE to see whether it addresses anything related.  It might.  I might be mistaken, but my impression is that this discussion might go beyond article titles and also include article content, headings, etc.  It could even apply to preferred usage on talk pages and even apply to civility.  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been doing cleanup on these WP:SPA accounts and IPs. I think it's a very small number of users, reincarnating with SPA accounts and editing logged out. There's a "genre change" warning in Twinkle that I've been using to warn them. This warning I just gave explains why these types of edits usually have to be treated like vandalism, even if well-intentioned. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on that. I'm glad we are having the discussion here. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, to address your assumption I wont be doing this for all articles as they don't need correction. However this article title is poorly worded and needs improvement. Other articles use Indigenous American or Native American instead of the antiquated Indian designation. The term Indian has been used since antiquity to specifically refer to the Indian subcontinent and the people of India. The use of "Indian" for Indigenous Americans, was a misnomer used by European settlers who incorrectly believed it was India. Since the vast majority of the term Indian is associated with the Indian subcontinent and its people, this marginalizes Indigenous Americans and their history. This is too similar to the Wiki page Massacres in India. The categories do not have a commonality asides from a historical confusion. Would you be able to provide a reasoning to why this article should use Indian instead of more modern identifiers? Vajra Raja (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to List of Indian massacres in North America, it looks like the move/rename discussion you started at Talk:List of Indian massacres in North America has closed, and there was no consensus to change "Indian" to "Native American", so I'd leave it alone. I think you can rest assured that most participants in this wikiproject know the long-term history and origins around the naming issue here in the Americas. Rather that attempting to Right the Great Wrong of names chosen generations ago, we also have to respect what living communities call themselves right now, including the official names of communities and organizations. The entire range of names are included in these self-identifiers, including many Native groups and individuals who self-identify as "Indian". I think all these points have been raised already; just reiterating in case you haven't kept up with the discussion. We are going to revert anyone who tries this wholesale name changing against consensus, and against the official names of these communities and orgs. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a potential fix: the "As written" template
It won't stop determined vandals, but may help the well-meant disruption:. Here's an example, that User:Mathglot helped out by adding after someone vandalized (and broke) the pan-Indian link in an article:

I wouldn't go to the trouble of pre-emptively adding it in all over the place, but if you're already there to revert, and and it seems more appropriate than protecting the article - it's another tool to have at hand. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Example quoted by CorbieVreccan can be found in the lead sentence of Two-spirit. Another potential fix is the use of an Edit notice, such as the one at Allahabad (click 'Edit' to view it). Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)