Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The map showing most of Southern Ontario as being Iroquoian is simply inaccurate. The Ojibway speaking Mississauga moved down into Southern Ontario, pushing the Iroquois ahead of them. It was with the Mississauga that the British made all their British North American treaties. In fact, after the American Revolution, the British had to buy reservation land from the Mississauga near Ganonoque and near Brantford for their Iroquois-speaking allies who were forced out of the new United States.

Bruce

I believe that the map under discussion is Image:Langs N.Amer.png. The situation with maps like these is that they are not of a specific point in time but a kind of pre-contact composite, but I am surprised to see the extent shown for Iroquois but I don't know the full extent of 16th century range of the tribes. As far as I understand most of the Ojibway expansion was due to post-contact pressures for furs to supply to the French. Rmhermen 02:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite my understanding. Expansion from the Atlantic coast to the centres around La Pointe, Duluth, Nipigon, Sault Ste. Marie, Manitoulin Island, Québec and Restigouche were all pre-contact. Expansion into the northern Great Plains, Illinois River Valley and Ohio River Valley were post-contact. Of the three post-contact expansions, only the northern Great Plains ever took hold. The descendants of the Illinois River Valley expansion are now in Kansas (Prairie Band of Potawatomi) while the descendants of the Ohio River Vally expansion are now in Oklahoma (Citizien Potawatomi, Ottawa, and those Ojibwe who are now part of either the Cherokee Nation or Absentee Shawnee). The pressures until about 1800's were the French and then British demand for furs. Pressures between 1800 and 1900 were more of geopolitical climate of the United States and Great Britain/Canada than anything else. Ish ishwar and I have begun discussing this, but we are both very busy (I will not be able to give my full attention until late June, 2006). Maybe an easy fix to the map is to draw isotemp bars to quantify which part of the map represents documented contact before 1500's, before 1600's, before 1700's, before 1800's and before 1900's, providing people with not only a visual aid of who was where but also when. CJLippert 08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It remains true that the entire map is not of a specific point in time and at some pre-contact time the range of Iroquoian may have been this large. For greatest detail a set of maps with location by time frame would be good but much of the pre-contact and early post-contact information is unfortunately vague. Rmhermen 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention, I've added some copy to the article on Wasson - as far as I can see, this isn't currently included in the project assessments. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been working on Native American articles for quite sometime now, and I figured I may as well join the wikiproject. How exactly do I do so? Asarelah 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Add your name in the Participants section on the project page, and join in. It's very loosely structured. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a new stub type, for people notable as Native Americans (as opposed to, notable Native Americans). There's a few dozen of these in {{US-bio-stub}} that are otherwise effectively not re-sortable. (Or alternatively, a split by location and historical period, which would also affect many of the same articles.) Comments and suggestions encouraged. Alai 14:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One user has repeatedly inserted Mormon beliefs/myths about the origin of Indigenous peoples in the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article, which has been reverted a number of times. A dispute is taking place in Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It would be nice if other project participants would weigh in. Luigizanasi 06:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if there are Mormon edits at Ani-kutani, too. I can understand that it would be appropriate, in an encyclopedia, to deal with Mormon beliefs, but it seems like it would be more appropriate to deal with Mormon mythology within an article on Latter-day Saints than in an article on Cherokee mythology. --Aaron Walden 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

About a year and a half ago I tried to get some people at Daybreak Star Cultural Center in Seattle interested in contributing to Wikipedia. They were somewhat intrigued, but at the time there was no WikiProject for me to suggest they become part of other than WP:CSB. Someone might want to follow up with them again: great institution, enormous knowledge about Northwest Natives (and, to some extent, other Native Americans, because many from other regions live around here), quite a few computer-savvy people among them. Similarly, coming at this from a different angle, there is an organization of Native American employees at Microsoft. Either might be a pool in which there would be people with a lot of relevant knowledge potentially interested in getting involved with this project. Anyone interested in following up on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hey, I have seen names of indigenous mexican people, yet none seem to have actual indigenous surnames. From what I have read I don't seem to know of pre-columbian aztec populations having surnames just tribal affiliations(Zapotec, Nahuatl, etc.) would anyone have any info in relation to this?? I know that many of the indigenous, on conversion to christianity, were given spanish surnames thus making them,by names, indistinguishable from the iberian(criollo and spanish-born)inhabitants. Would anybody also know if these mexicans have clan groupings of some sort?Domsta333 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptism was the major way that the indigenous people of Mexico were "Hispanicized", although intermarriage played a large role. In some groups, such as the Yaqui and Huichol, a strong ethnic identity remains. Among others, tribal and clan- ties have been replaced by or infused into the Mexican social structure, such as among the Aztec and the Chichimec. Does this answer your question?--Rockero 15:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello,

I'm not sure if this is needed but I've begun a modest list od missing articles concerning Native American related articles, in the case a "Wanted Articles" section becomes needed. Also, for those interested a WikiProject regarding the American Southwest has been proposed in case anyone would be interested. MadMax 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

An "articles wanted" list seems like a good thing to me. --Aaron Walden 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign (1834)
• Creek War of 1836, aka Second Creek War or Creek Alabama Uprising (1835-1837)
• Missouri-Iowa Border War (1836)
• Sabine-Southwestern War (1836–1837)
• Cherokee Uprising (1836-1838)
• Southwest Indian Wars (1849-1863)
• Utah Indian Wars (1851-1853)
• Klamath and Salmon Indian Wars (1855)
• Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Paloos War (1858)
• Pecos Expedition (1859)
• Kiowa-Comanche War (1860)
• Kidder Massacre (1867) (see 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment)
• Eastern Navada Expedition (1875)
• New Mexico Navajo War (1913)
• Colorado Paiute War (1915)

Yer wish is my command; see the "Historical" section on the project page overleaf; and note that the list above as you've put is only a portion of the many more on the original page, all of which need putting into the table I created; which also btw could use another column for "related articles", e.g. connected bios, or as a war/battle hierarchy/category structure as with the way I've created/adjusted the new governments /bands table. But I'm getting tired of the copy-pasting, so here's your assignment: using a template from one of the existing cells of the table, get into inserting the other hundred-odd items into the table; it's laborious but ultimately useful. And it was your idea, though you didn't realize it. Not that it's your fault I've spent the last day working on all these big tables; but somebody had to get 'em started; at some point the tables should be made subpages, I think, of the project page, because ultimately they're going to be huge, especially the governments one and the communities/pueblos/reservations ones; and probably also the bios/personalitiesSkookum1 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made Cherokee Uprising a redirect to the Anglo-Cherokee War of 1762, since I believe that is what the phrase "Cherokee Uprising" most commonly refers to. Outside of Wikipedia, I don't believe I've seen "Cherokee Uprising" applied to the (very limited) Cherokee armed resistance of the 1830s during the Trail of Tears period. Of course, a disambiguation notice for "Cherokee Uprising" could be placed at Anglo-Cherokee War if this usage is legitimate. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Fort Ancient culture page, it states "The Fort Ancient culture was once thought to be an expansion of the Mississippian cultures, but is now accepted as an independently developed culture that was descended from the Hopewell culture (100 BC-AD 500)".

How widely is this accepted? Lisa Mill's DNA analysis, for example (http://www.friendsofpast.org/earliest-americans/030807OhioDNA.html), indicates that the Hopewell do not show a close relationship to the Fort Ancients.

Doppelbock 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:TriNotch might have the best idea about this. That link shows how modern DNA research is changing many fields. Rmhermen 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question; slightly complicated answer. Both the Hopewell and Fort Ancient "cultures" are constructs imposed by archaeologists; neither corresponds directly to genetic or ethnic boundaries. So, there is actually no archaeological reason to believe that an individual Hopewell population necessarily should be related to an individual Fort Ancient population. So, this link is really addressing a different question. Interesting, though. In terms of accepted thought, there is still a debate over whether Fort Ancient is a local development (i.e. descended from the Hopewell, through Late Woodland intermediaries) or whether it is an intrusive group. Probably SOME of the people of the Fort Ancient culture were descended from SOME of the people of the Hopewell culture. But most archaeologists agree that they are NOT Mississippians. Different levels of social complexity and differing subsistence practices, as well as a general lack of Mississippian-style iconography and monumentality, pretty clearly argue for a cultural difference. So; Independent from Mississippian Culture? Yes. Descended from Hopewell? Maybe. TriNotch 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See my notes and changes on the main article page here; a lot of what I'm coming across are things where there's a "tribe" article, but no separate language one; or vice-versa; so some kind of colour between "stub" and "needs to be started" I think we should have, and maybe a stub to be inserted on tribe pages needing division?Skookum1 22:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty thorough as far as languages go, although all the dialects that might have articles aren't linked into the listing yet; and the nations thing I'm going to have to rethink/rejig when I get to that section; should the Tribal Council entries go in the Nations list at the top, or in the communities things in the bottom? Top, I guess. I think also a column in the table indicating whether redirects from alt spellings or alt names are "complete", e.g. with Nlaka'pamux there should be redirect from Thompson people/language, Knife people/language, Couteau people/language, with St'at'imc it should be from Lillooet, Lil'wat, Stl'atl'imx and Stlatliumh. Ad nauseam in some cases, esp. when IPA variants are counted in.Skookum1 08:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Been working my way through groups, governments, languages, communities etc concerning my home turf (BC); there's various categories that are a bit of a trouble distinguishing which should go where; currently with many people-content articles combined with language-content articles, this is even a bit harder. The immediate ones of concern are [[Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia]], [[Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia]] and [[Category:First Nations in British Columbia]]. I'm wondering if anyone's compiled a list of categories relevant to the Indigenous peoples wikiproject and what guidelines there are for figuring out which goes where, and which categories might be redundant or are in need of combination ([[Category:Aboriginal communities in Canada]] comes to mind re the three BC cats already mentioned.Skookum1 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep on saying I'm going to take a break from compiling the project's big tables; thought I was gonna haul off after California, which I thought I'd finished, only to find more yet; and there's heaps on the Atlantic Seaboard (see the Native American tribes category listing); most of them are stubs, or combinations of language and people articles (I'll come up with a new color-key for that); but I've been meaning to write actual articles lately and have been chewing up too much time working on the people/language tables; lots of new pointers to work that needs doing there for any other editors out there, and I'm no ethnologist to write THOSE articles nor would I have a clue where to look for sources etc, or to judge content politically/culturally (being paleface and all). Gonna take a breather from this particular batch of work and write up some missing BC articles, e.g Xa:ytem Rock (9000BP) and some other archaeological sites, as well as the Fraser Canyon War which connects to the Yakima, Cayuse and Palouse Wars directly, and which also need to be added to Indian Wars; but "I'll be back" at the table-building task sometime soon.Skookum1 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is maybe controversial; but if Lumbee, another mixed "tribe", and Michif and Bungie are included in the project, shouldn't Melungeon be as well, despite the iffiness of their history/lineage? Doesn't need a "stub" marking (nearly a featured article) but wondering about listing them in the "people" group table.Skookum1 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say no. Note that the Lumbee and Michif are acknowledged as of Native ancestry. The Melungeons are not and don't even all claim it. Altogether too murky. Rmhermen 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While genetics seems to indicate that Melungeons may not be native peoples, it seems like the questions that have been around regarding their ethnic identity make it still a related topic, in a sense. --Aaron Walden 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

François-Marie Bissot, Sieur de Vincennes mentions he was killed during a French war against this tribe. I believe that this is the same as the Chickasaw. Can anyone confirm this? Rmhermen 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Chicacha" are the Chickasaw. They have been recorded as "Cicaça" as well. There is an interesting article regarding the interactions between the Chickasaw (Chicacha) and Quapah (Akansa) at University of Indiana. CJLippert 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made it a redirect. Rmhermen 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw someone else's proposal for a NorthAm-bio stub. As you've probably noticed, this last week I've been trying to delineate the differences between ethno/people/tribe articles, language articles, and political organization/government articles; there's stubs for the first two, and as things proceed we're going to need a stub for the poli/gov ones, as they're not the same thing as the ethno/tribe things, even though in some cases they describe the same community; but a government is not a people, etc. In some cases around here (BC) there'll be a band council/First Nation page, a tribe/people/history page, and a language page; and often as well a Communities in BC category page for the same community, e.g. Hartley Bay, British Columbia or Anahim Lake, British Columbia, which are entirely native communities (well, except for a few non-natives in Alexis) that have native governments, a cultural/historical/tribal identity, as well as a specific language (or two). So one community, theoretically, might have four articles; but often enough the language articles cover at least several communities, possibly more than one regional government (as well as numerous sub-groups within that government), and will also overlap with non-native-topic geographic/locational articles. Likewise, regional government boundaries/definitions may include two or three languages and/or cultural groups.Skookum1 06:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't participated in a WikiProject before. If there are some related articles that I think should be included in the project, how do I add them? Thanks. -- TheMightyQuill 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with editing content in tables, maybe you could put your suggestions here and ask some else to add them. Rmhermen 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a table of all the legend/myth articles that are scattered around Wikipedia? I just found Thunderbird, Thunderbird and Whale and Forbidden Plateau (actually I wrote Forbidden Plateau a while ago). I added our usual stubs to them, but it struck me that they deserve their own table, possibly a category, possibly their own stub.Skookum1 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbird (mythology) is already in Category:Native American mythology with a number of other topics. Rmhermen 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to add that a 19th century 14-metre Carrier totem pole now greets visitors at the brand-new Quai Branly Museum in Paris. It was a gift from Kurt and Arlette Seligmann in 1939 and was recently restored. It's the most visible item in the new museum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.62.118 (talk • contribs)

There are a ton of native american mythology topics waiting to be addressed at the Hotlist of Mythology, part of the missing encyclopedia articles project. This group's expertise would be a big help with those! Bookgrrl 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That category has kind of an awkward name, doesn't it? Especially since the thunderbird legend, at least in the thunderbird and whale story, is clearly from the BC Coast (and the Alaska Panhandle/Puget Sound). At least the title should be "North American Native mythology" or "Native North American mythology", doncha think?Skookum1 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it awkward. I think you are running into the Native American name controversy definition issue. In the usage I am familiar with Native American means the same thing that Indian does, that is, any native of the Americas except Eskimo/Inuits. Rmhermen 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But you're not Canadian, nor a member of a Canadian First Nation. OK, you might be Canadian (haven't looked at your user page) but you're extremely rare if you're not uncomfortable with that term. Canadians are more sensitive about it than Mexicans, BUT it's still a big issue. The category needs renaming, or a redirect to something like [[Category:North American Native mythology]].Skookum1 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you don't like it. I understand that others don't like Indian or native. I do see that some Canadians do use it: for instance, [1] discussing "Northwest Native American art". There will probably never be a universally acceptable terminology, hence the controversy page I pointed you to. Rmhermen 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the Spirit Gallery, and am in awe of some of the huge (yet tasteful) masks on the wall there, pricey, pricey, pricey, too. But their primary web market is visiting Americans, or American collectors, and I don't think you'd see "Native American Art" on their street-sign, or on any of the other 200-plus shops in Vancouver selling native art (the phrase "Native Art" is typically used, as at Hill's just up Water Street, another well-known native-goods store, but less high-tone than Spirit Gallery. Point is that when Canadians market to the United States, they use American language (even stooping to spell "colour" and "centre" the American way). The store website (and potentially sign) is a rare exception, and again it should be stressed that within Canadian English usage, "Native American" is a misnomer, and First Nations people themselves like it less than non-First Nations people already do.Skookum1 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As in the ongoing breakdown of the tables obverse, there is evolving a needed delineation between different kinds of IpNA articles ("IpNa" - kind of a neologistic acronym but useful shorthand, huh?), as many are simultaneously ethnography and language and government/agency/reserve articles, and also community articles; there's at least three categories of article there, possibly four (depending on how "community" - components of larger government groupings, or places that are native in population/character if not actually reserves or specific governments). Reason for this is, say, with Lushootseed there's twenty different tribes that speak it; one article cannot describe them all (see Lushootseed for my change of "See Also" to "Peoples who Speak Lushootseed" or whatever I called that section); the same thing should be done for situations like Carrier and Secwepemc, where there are different "national" groupings and independent bands within the language-area; and other instances where ethnography does not necessarily coincide with language/linguistics; even when it does, language articles should be primarily linguistic with culture, customs and artwork on a separate page, and that also separate from governments and communities; in some case such as Haida and others, there will no doubt be (or already are) art articles, even music articles connected.

So what I'm getting at is it's too big a task for any one person and I'm trying to enlist others for feedback and participation in this end of it; breaking up articles when needed; e.g .Squamish First Nation, which by name should be about the polity and its sub-bands/communities, has a Squamish language section in it; and while the culture/ethnography could go in Squamish First Nation, there's enough detail material just on the communities, chiefs, councils for one article (the "government") article, and more for the culture/ethnography. Also, the Burrards (Tseil-waututh, home of the late Chief Dan George, speak the Squamish language, but are not Squamish. Or rather, they're Squamish ethnically, but not politically, and geographically they don't live on a Squamish Reserve (theirs is the Burrard Reserve, east of Second Narrows, if you know where that is).

Qualifier (my own); came across something somewhere recently, I think not on Wiki, that the Burrards/Tsleil-wau-tuth are Halqemeylem speakers like the Kwayquitlam and Musqueam; I thought they were a breakaway Squamish group but I'll check on this and revise whatever pages are affected by any such change. It's all pretty tangled, partly because the family trees, especially the chieftaincies, are all intertangled, as are their land claims/traditional territories.Skookum1 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And so on. It's probably simpler in the States; and in a way even more complicated there because you get governments/agencies/reserveations that are multi-ethnic/multi-linguistic; so the breakdown is necessary.

Just trying to bring everything to some kind of consistency; to evolve a standard of some kind.Skookum1 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also needed; disambig or top-page italics comments on articles like Tsawwassen, Puyallup, Nisqually etc. which include the usual notice that goes "This article is about the city of XX. For the XXX people, see [[XXXXXX]]. For the XXX language, see [[XXXXXX]]" "

FWIW, what I have done for the Yukon First Nations is to have separate articles for the people (ethnography), the language, and for each individual First Nation government. So, for example, we have Kaska, Kaska language, Liard First Nation and Ross River Dena Council. You might find the discussions on categorisation my talk page and Kurieeto's talk page of some interest. At the time, we reorganized all articles relating to First Nations along those lines, and Kurieeto created a bunch of templates. Luigizanasi 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm categorising Catholic Encyclopedia articles not yet in Wikipedia, and there are a few articles that relate to Native American groups here:

Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat FirstNations

To find the Catholic Encyclopedia article click on "CE" next to the name.

JASpencer 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They're also obsolete and inaccurate; and while useful for some details should not be considered authoritative and should be considered from the Church's jaundiced perspectives on native belief and culture; IIRC they also named "Coast Salish" as a tribe, which it's not (a language group, yes, a culture area/affinity, yes, but not a tribe); whatever it was, must have been you perhaps, that expanded a recent article using the CE as a guide; it needed major revision afterwards. Caveat emptor with the CE, please.Skookum1 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just gone through the various BC First Nations (haven't bothered with the rest of Canada yet) removing the "Native American tribes" cat, which was all over the place. There are, um, no "Native Americans" in Canada, as discussed elsewhere; for a bit I was wondering if this project's stub-tags were inserting this cat, as it was on articles I don't recall it being on, and where it just didn't belong since the article wasn't a "tribe" anyway; there's a discussion bouncing back between User talk:Luigizanasi and User talk:Kurieeto about Canadian category problems; which don't need complicating by thet use of "Native American" to span the continent, as if it carried the same meaning in Canadian English as it does in US English. It doesn't.Skookum1 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems someone has added a news article regarding the pollution experienced by the Aamijiwanaang (Sarnia) Anishinaabeg right into the {{NorthAm-native-stub}} template, and inserting this news article in every instance of this stub marker. I'm not sure how to acess the template to change it, so would someone who is a bit more computer savvy do this? Also, this article, once dislodged from the stub template, probably should be moved to either WikiSource or find the originating article and provide a link to it from the Ojibwe page. Miigwech (Thanks) in advance. CJLippert 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That was fast! WikiAdministrator Ezeu reverted the template and extracted the article inserted by Lenni lenape as a separate page. CJLippert 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should go and comment on this award. --evrik 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, this to advise of a recently-developed WikiProject which would have some relationship to this one, namely WikiProject Mesoamerica. This project has as its scope the improvement in content and coverage of articles, categories etc relating to the Mesoamerican region and (in particular) its historical cultures and civilizations and their achievements. Since WP Indigenous peoples of Nth Am extends its coverage to indigenous peoples in Mexico, there'd be some degree of topical overlap and some number of articles in common. The two projects would most likely however have some differences in focus and emphasis on these intersecting articles. Cross-collaboration and participation is invited, anyone interested in the cultures and history of this particular region is welcome to look around the WP:MESO project's pages and contribute (Note that there's also a topical sub-project, WikiProject Aztec, in operation as well, looking at Aztec-specific material.) Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if experts here would look in on the dispute at Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and its talk page. Evertype 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages and various Indigenous peoples project article/talk pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my posting of this: if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issues relating to Oregon Country/Columbia District/Pacific Northwest history/historical geography, colonialist or aboriginal/indigenous, please feel free to drop by the forum and start a thread/topic, or just butt in at yer leisure.Skookum1 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out the new system on the main pages so I will put this here for now. This page, List of English words of Native American origin, could use a lot of expansion. It currently appears unrealistically biased. Surely other languages contributed as well - or should Algonquian be split up to better show the number of different languages in that section? Rmhermen 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there already is a page called List of English words of Algonquian origin with even more words. Having the short listing on the List of English words of Native American origin seems duplicative. In English, there is going to be bias towards the Algonquian languages because of several factors: 1) the majority of the indigenous people the English first encountered were nearly all members of an Algonquian community and 2) many Algonquian tribes were key partners in the continent's interior commerce and trade. Because of these two major factors, not only are flora, fauna, common items and toponyms end up being adopted into the English language from the Algonquian languages, but even the peoples of the interor (Sioux, Winnebago, Flatheads, Chipweyan, etc.) were known by the Algonquian names (or translations there of) rather than by the peoples' own name. Since many Algonquian languages are similar, it might be helpful if a word is known to come from a specific Algonquian language, then to group and attribute them, but if not, keep it in the general section with examples among as many Algonquian languages as possible. CJLippert 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know about that page. I have suggested that they be merged. Rmhermen 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I began the merge of the page. All of the "Algonquin" section of List of English words of Native American origin is in the List of English words of Algonquian origin, but the list of well-known places found in the second is not found in the first. I think I'm leaving it off there and let others massage them the rest of the way until it looks good enough to merger the two and eliminate/redirect the List of English words of Algonquian origin page. In addition, I have put in a suggestion for List of English words of Nahuatl origin be merged into the List of English words of Native American origin as well. CJLippert 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure is this would be useful to the project, however I've recently completed a missing topics list based on Bruce Grant's The Concise Encyclopedia of the American Indian if anyone would like to check it out. MadMax 11:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice list. This inspired me to make a significant change to Bury the Hatchet, which was listed as primarily a musical album, rather than a colloquialism derived from Iroquoian practices. TriNotch 19:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also working on more in-depth topic lists based on Jerry Keenan's Encyclopedia of American Indian Wars and The Encyclopedia of Native American Biography by Bruce Johansen and David Grinde, Jr. MadMax 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Happened to stop by there this morning while researching something else, and winced at a couple of phrsaings. Could a Native American or NA-sensitive person have a look at this page and see what tweaks might get rid of the US-military bias built into it? I suspect the same might be the case for Cayuse War, Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Paloos War and Rogue River Wars. Skookum1 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know US-side native history so well, even in the PacNW; if there's anyone here who knows Kamiakin's story, would you mind writing a stub at least and revising the redirect thing to the High School? I put a note on Talk:Kamiakin High School that you'd think one of their students/teachers would write a bio of the guy (war chief of the Yakama, if I recall, during the Yakima War) since it's their schools namesake, but.....Skookum1 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kamiakin no longer redirects to Kamiakin High School, but instead to Chief Kamiakin. A stub article created. Some links provided. CJLippert 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, would love some input at Talk:Duwamish_(tribe)#Dkhw.27Duw.27Absh as to whether "Duwamish" or "Dkhw'Duw'Absh" should be used throughout the article. My and User:Jmabel's position is that the Native form of the name should be used once, at the beginning, and that thereafter we should use "Duwamish," since this is the English Wikipedia, that is the tribe's name, and that is how they refer to themselves in English (we checked out their web site). User:GoDot thinks otherwise. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! --Lukobe 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone wanted to work on developing some native American studies materials for Wikiversity. --Aaron Walden 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I filed an RfC for the Lumbee article. There is an ongoing dispute about their origins, which weakens the integrity of the article. The debate is over whether they descend from an authentic tribe, or if their origins are more recent and they have no real tribal history. Because the Lumbee claim to be the largest tribe east of the Mississippi River, we really need to resolve this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the purpose of Wikipedia to decide whether the Lumbee are or aren't a tribe. Are the Seminoles a tribe? Of course they are, even though their origins lay within various tribes and ethnicities. Are the Lumbee? That's been debated for a very long time. --Aaron Walden 08:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron Walden because same can be said about the Cherokees, or on a larger scope of Nationhood (even beyond the concept of "What is a 'Tribe'?"), the citizens of Canada, the United States and every Nation on the American continents. When a Nation have rich history of movement of peoples, what joins the peoples as a Nation don't fit into a nice definition or a common definition, but rather how the group identifies themselves. And, the Lumbee is of no exception. CJLippert 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lumbee article is largely biased and misleading. There is no mention in the Lumbee article of the fact that the majority (95%) of the surnames/ families comprising the "Lumbee" tribe can be traced to the Tuscarora Reservation of the 1700's in Bertie Co. NC. There is a multitude of documentation avaialable indicating that these people are in fact Tuscarora. A number of experts, including acclaimed author Dr. Peter Wood agree. The "Lumbee" name was recently created and has no historic basis. There is rarely mention or discussion of the "Lumbee" tribe's Tuscarora roots.-- David Webb

I don't think we need to decide whether they are a tribe either, but we do need to sort out who says what, or the article will never be improved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to ask the Lumbee if they consider the conglomeration of people that share similar characteristics and national history as a Tribe? Make a phone call, find a quote, or maybee just maybee, get an educated Lumbee to describe their political identity. Scuggy 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting discussion about moving from Mi'kmaq to Míkmaq for articles relating to this topic. Please see Talk:Mi'kmaq language and discuss there. Thanks! Evertype 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a proposal here for some reorganization of this category and its sub-categories; any comments or suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all adverse to the notion of tribal sovereignty, just trying to understand it. If true components of sovereignty include a defined group of people, a territory, and authority to govern people within that territory then I cannot see how tribes can claim to be sovereign. The defined group may be O.K. but given native americans concept of land and property, how would you define their territroy? Many tribes were nomadic and there were many conflicts over territories. There were no legal boundaries in the non-indian sense. Tribes were relocated, what happened to their territory then. If they were displaced, does their sovereignty attach to their old territory or does it go with them, if so, what is their new territory. If they were placed on reservations, is that their new territory. Did tribes ever really have authority to govern. Tribal representative that signed treaties were denominated "Cheifs" by the white man. They were not elected, or even recognized by all members of the tribes as leaders. There was no "popular sovereignty" no democracy, no devine right, Where does this notion of sovereignty come from. Many claim it has been there from time immemorial. But it seem to be legitimate only to the extent that superior powers, i.e. the federal government allows it. To that extent it is a contradiction, both because sovereignty cannot be "given" to a people, and because by definition a sovereign is not subject to a higher authority. Is the tribal notion of sovereignty a different creature than philosophical notions of sovereignty? Is the world changing its definition of sovereignty to a watered down verstion that really means something quite different? Once again, I am not challenging or antagonistic toward this issue, but would like some discussion on what it really means.Nelyag 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty obviously means different things to different people. Certainly some groups may only be asking for independent control over their own reservation, whereas others insist that their historic territory was never legally ceded, and should therefor be under their control. Again, there is no single "native american concept of land" but even if one nation's concept of land ownership conflicts with another doesn't give one the right to simply usurp that land and claim it as their own. Some nations had/have more strictly determined governing systems than others, some more democratic, others hereditary. Either way, those demanding sovereignty don't usually believe that land was fairly ceded by whatever governing body was in place. How do you mean sovereignty cannot be given? -- TheMightyQuill 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

this topic begs the question: when native peoples are described, shouldn't they be predominately described from a native perspective? Some have claimed that this presents a biased POV, yet my contention is that a non-native perspective is the same, a biased POV. While it may be unfamiliar to comprehend "sovereignty" from a non-Eurocentric viewpoint if you possess an American or European education; however, to claim that this is the only view on "sovereignty" presents a superiority over indigenous peoples that is basically suppression. Instead, as noted above, a case by case, tribal nation by tribal nation evaluation of governmental, cultural, geographic, etc...ad nauseum should be provided a majority of space. For instance, the heavy political concepts that arise out of the Haudenosaunee are vastly different from the more culturally based Anishnabee. Both have conceptions of political independence and self-governing political apparatuses; however, these conceptions place in the social fabric are akin to apples and oranges. Read "A Basic Call to Consciousness" for some basics on sovereignty from a Haudenosaunee perspective. Scuggy 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)