Aaron Walden (talk | contribs) |
→[[Ward Churchill]]: respond to Lulu's mischaracterization of my comment |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:::I'm not terribly interested in the motivations, whether it was just to "snipe at Churchill" or whatever, however, not only his contributions to the field of Native American studies put him within the scope of this project, so does the controversy regarding his alleged tribal membership, in my opinion. --[[User:Aaron Walden|Aaron Walden]] 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
:::I'm not terribly interested in the motivations, whether it was just to "snipe at Churchill" or whatever, however, not only his contributions to the field of Native American studies put him within the scope of this project, so does the controversy regarding his alleged tribal membership, in my opinion. --[[User:Aaron Walden|Aaron Walden]] 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::I already stated that I wasn't particularly interested/knowledgable in NA issues and I wasn't "sniping at Churchill". I was merely raising an issue without any prejudice as to how to handle it. Lulu, you don't ''have'' to always disparage my comments. It's actually better to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], as I try to do with you. – [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] <sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]'''•'''[[Special:Contributions/Doug Bell|contrib]]</sup> 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 1 March 2006
Categories
On the list of categories, would it be better if we were to alphabetize them as we go along? --Aaron Walden 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great idea Aaron - be bold and rearrange them ;) I would only recommend to leave the project cat on top, as it will surely be our main working reference. Great work on the userbox, btw! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- We need to think about reorganizing and pruning the categories. I'm finding a lot of categories to add to the list. Most the categories have sub-categories, which have sub-sub-categories. I've found sixteen categories to add to the list tonight, and I'm still only reached the (now) 12th on the list. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, no kidding. There's a lot of them. Wouldn't it work to just list the top categories, since the sub-categories are listed within each, anyway? --Aaron Walden 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunatley no because the category structure is not a strict tree, i.e. not all sub cats are under the same cat, some aren't even under the right cat or may be under something totally unrelated. Like until I edited it tonight, Category:indigenous peoples of Mexico wasn't a sub cat of Category:Indigenous peoples of North America. The cat system is too messy to trust it that way. It would be easier if it were better organized, but it isn't. Maybe we need a separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Working categories or something if the list gets giant.
- Yes, Dalbury, you're right - the pile-on of categories is far greater than I expected. Imho, it's best to list subcats as well, since we wish a global overview of the location of all existing resources both for searching and (re)location purposes. However, now that the number of them that we've identified is making the list too large to be included at the project's main page, I suggest that we move it to a subpage. I also think that maybe we should split it a little more, following the same criteria that you've currently used, i.e. maybe a Culture subsection is in order - please, go ahead and follow your own ideas. You're doing a great job searching for cats and posting them here, guys - congrats! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved the cats to the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Working categories. Seemed like a logical thing to do. pschemp | talk 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- And I suppose another reason each must be listed is that future editors could come along and remove their sub-category status, rendering it an insufficient list. --Aaron Walden 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- My suspicion is that they are sparsley populated due to nobody knowing article should go there rather than there are no articles to go there. I've been working in related category schemes (all the archaeology cats for examples) and have seen this to be the case usually. Let's hold off on merging until all the available data is collected. I'm making it my project to deal with the cats and their populations and classifications. pschemp | talk 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are some candidates for merging on other grounds: Category:Native Americans' rights activists and Category:Native American activists, and Category:Lakota mythology, Category:Lakota deities, Category:Lakota goddesses and Category:Lakota gods. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Scope
Can we include Indians of Mexico too? They have no category and most of their articles are stubs (except Aztec). Needs a lot of work. I have some books on Mexican Indians in Spanish, so if the language is a barrier, maybe you could send those projects my way?--Rockero420 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- As long as we have users with expertise in the subject, like you seem to do, Rockero, I think the idea is great. Please, feel free to add the proper template to each article's Talk Page in order to identify them. As the project has just begun, the first step is to identify all artciles under its scope, and list them at the project page as soon as we have categorized them. I'll remake the templates in order to include Indigenous peoples of Mexico asap. Thank you for your cooperation, and welcome! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
scope 2: prehistory?
hi.
question: how about including prehistory? (unless your meaning of "historic" includes prehistory as well). i note that the coverage of American archaeology is a rather weak point of Wikipedia.
peace – ishwar (speak) 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, dear Ish - in fact, now that we're going through the categorizing stages (an absolute must imho, in order to identify as many related articles as possible), I've already tagged a few artciles that fall into that period of time. Please, go ahead and include any others you see fit. Cheers! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Inuit/Eskimo
The Inuit and other Eskimo-Aleut speaking peoples should also be included. What do you think? Also, it might be useful to invite the numerous people who have contributed to aboriginal-related articles. Luigizanasi 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Definetely, Luigi - in fact, I just went into a categorizing spree and tagged as many articles related to that group as I could. Again, I encourage you to seek any others you deem appropriate and tag them at their Talk Pages as well with the {{NorthAmNative}} template. I also created an invitation template to let as many interested users as possible know of the existence of this project; you can add it at their Talk Pages with {{NANWP}}. Welcome aboard, and happy editing! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then the Wikiproject notification template should change to include them explicitly. They do not consider themselves First Nations, and would be insulted by the term. I would like to suggest the wording "Native American, First Nations, Inuit and Alaska Native". I would do it, but I fear I will probably screw it up. Luigizanasi 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Redlinked articles
There are a number of redlinked articles at List_of_U.S._military_history_events#American Indian conflicts, wars, battles, expeditions and campaigns - it may be advisable to change the section title as well. Please note Native Americans in the United States instead of Indigenous peoples of North America as well - not sure if you want to move that. Another set of redlinks is at List_of_Native_American_Tribal_Entities - and I am sure you have more than enough to do without me mentioning redlinks so I will stop now. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the belated reply, KC - but please, don't shut up! On the contrary, your suggestions are most welcome. I had already noticed the many red links on the Indian Wars part of the list of US military events, since in fact it was my first interest in Wikipedia and my main one for some time. The difficulty to find information about several conflicts made me advance very slowly, but I managed to write a little about some of them, like Winnebago War and Peoria War. I find the subject fascinating (I actually joined the Wikiproject Military history to expand related articles), and I agree with you: at some point in the near future, thse topics should be included within the scope of this project. I recommend that we go a little slow at the beginning, since the task is already rather big and adding even more subjects may be daunting, but you're absolutely right - this can be (and hopefully will be) a very interesting area for future development. Cheers! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I would love to help out this project. I think one of the articles that needs immediate attention is Sitting Bull. Just reading through it, the tone is wrong, it is not comprehensive, and needs major clean-up. It sounds like a 13-year old wrote it. I will help out when I get a chance, but I'm currently busy working on two other article. Gflores Talk 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Lot's of Indigenous information out here - All jumbled around!
Maybe we can come to a consensus to consolidate as much Indigenous information onto one page as possible, since everyone is Indigenous to somewhere? My current count for disambiguation pages is at least 20 (I stopped trying to count them). Anyone have any ideas on how to do this efficiently? -- 24.11.91.3 07:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Some Examples:
- Indigenous American
- Indigenous peoples
- Indigenous peoples in the United States
- Native Americans in the United States
- Native American name controversy
- See the talk pages on those articles. There was substantial discussion back in September 2005 about the jumble of stuff in Native American, Indigenous people of the Americas, etc. The consensus reached was that three separate articles were needed and stuff was moved to the appropriate articles: Native Americans in the United States for the strictly US-related material, Indigenous peoples of the Americas for an overview, and Native American name controversy for the material related to collective names. Luigizanasi 16:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Reservations
I notice your list of articles has no category for reservations/reserves. We have a number of these articles (List of Native American reserves in Canada, List of Indian reservations in the United States will help find them.) I also noticed that while we have a list of U.S. federally recognized tribes and a list of U.S. state recognized tribes, I couldn't find a list of U.S. unrecognized tribes. I only know 3 or 4 which is hardly enough to justify starting a list but there should be a large number in Virginia, New England and California. Rmhermen 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Capitalization of terms
Hi all - Currently the term "Indigenous" is capitalized the majority of the time when used on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America article. However, over at Indigenous peoples, it is capitalized the minority of times it is used. It would be quite helpful to establish a naming convention for use on Wikipedia regarding whether or not the ethnic group term "Indigenous" and its synonym "Aboriginal" should be capitalized all the time, none of the time, or perhaps some of the time and in which general cases. Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization may be helpful to a discussion. Kurieeto 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is a valid point, Kuri - I simply used the capitalization every time we mention the project's name more as a title than a naming convention for indigenous peoples themselves. My humble opinion is, that it should not be capitalized if we actually mean indigenous peoples, and only use the capitalization when mentioning the project's full name. Again, your input is more than welcome. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Arguments in favour of capitalization include that "Indigenous" should be capitalized like other ethnic terms, such as Arabic, Asian, or German. Also, the policy of the Government of Canada is that "Indigenous means 'native to the area.' In this sense, Aboriginal people are indeed indigenous to North America. As a proper name for a people, the term is capitalized to form 'Indigenous peoples.'" [1]. Just so I'm clear on your rationale, what are your arguments in favour of not capitalizing the term? Kurieeto 12:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the most appropriate place for a discussion about the capitalization/non-capitalization of "indigenous peoples" would be Talk:Indigenous peoples, so I've begun a new discussion about the matter there. Kurieeto 13:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Lists
Not sure were it would fit on the project page, these lists are fertile ground for finding red-links.
- List of Indian reservations in the United States
- List of Native American Tribal Entities
- List of Native Alaskan Tribal Entities
- List of State Recognized American Indian Tribal Entities
- List of U.S. Indian Tribal Government Web sites - not redlinks but very incomplete
- List of Aboriginal communities in Canada - on list of most red-linked Wikipedia articles
- List of place names in Canada of Aboriginal origin
- Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas - listed for possible merge
- List of Native American tribes - listed for possible merge
- Indigenous languages of the Americas
- Classification schemes for indigenous languages of the Americas - not wikified
- List of First Nations peoples
I couldn't find any list of Archeological cultures/complexes. (List of pre-Columbian civilizations is related but very incomplete and Cultural periods of Peru could be a format guide.) Rmhermen 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I started List of archaeological cultures in North America. Rmhermen 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- List of First Nations has ample red links as well. Kurieeto 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- These lists can certainly provide rich reference to artciles that we need to work on. Perhaps it would be a good idea to broaden our Categories sections to "Working lists and categories", and add them to the proper subpage. What do you think? Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- List of Indigenous people of the Americas is mostly blue-links but not very comprehensive (although it covers a slightly larger group than the topic of this project, it is sectioned by modern nations.) Rmhermen 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Two projects
Here's a possible goal for the project: make sure Wikipedia has an article for each entry listed in the Encyclopedia of North American Indians, a good online resource, written by scholars. Like the Dictionary of Candian Biography project, a systematic approach could be adopted, making sure each Wikipedia article has an external link to the online source.
Speaking of the Canadian Biography project, there are a lot of "red links" to native names there, so that's another place where project members here could do some good work, starting new Wikipedia entries for as-yet overlooked biographies.
As always, when I say "somebody" ought to do something, I mean "somebody other than me." --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- hi. i think is ok.
- however, i suggest also that the Handbook of North American Indians published (and still being published) by the Smithsonian Institution is an excellent source to guide what is missing here by simply taking note of the table of contents in each volume. It is more comprehensive than the website mentioned above. Some volumes are out-of-date by now, but still this is the single best reference in the English language on general North American info. peace – ishwar (speak) 09:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- oh yes, i didnt mention before, but the reference i provided of Landar's (1973) "checklist" is something like Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas except that it is bigger (at 188 pages) with synonymy cross-indexing (we know all the alternate historical names of peoples & languages can drive newcomers to Indian scholarship crazy). this may be useful to see what is missing – ishwar (speak) 10:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Another online source people should keep in mind are the famous McKenney-Hall portraits. (Between 1821 and 1842, many American Indian leaders who came to sign treaties in Washington D.C. had their portraits painted, mostly by Charles Bird King.) These portraits were published as lithographs in the 19th century, and are all over the Internet, like here. Someone might want to make a list of these portraits, to make sure Wikipedia has them all and their corresponding articles. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Flags of Indigenous Peoples
I feel that the article Flags of indigenous peoples should be addressed in this project, however, it is proposed for merger with Flags of non-sovereign nations (which proposal I am not in favor of). At present Flags of non-sovereign nations has flags of more indigenous nations of North America listed than does Flags of indigenous peoples. --Aaron Walden 09:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am inclined to oppose that merge too. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Aaron - I'd like to see Flags of indigenous peoples under our scope as well. On a side note, I'll have rough time logging in this week, but I'll try to asses and add as many articles to our lists as possible, and maybe create a new sublist or two as well. Hopefully, we'll have as many of the ancillary articles as our lists properly assessed soon, so we can get to work on the most important part of the project: expanding and improving them. Cheers, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Article classification tables
Well I STARTED out to add the BIA as a relevant article, but I can never remember the color codes for the article types!!! So I added a column to the article types table with the hex code values. In doing so I decided that it would make sense to resectionalise (adding Grading scheme) so I could edit just that section and not all of the other tables at the same time (they get a lot of edit traffic), and that maybe a sample table would be good, explaining the columns of the article tables. Maybe redundant as they are mostly self explanatory but maybe it will be of use. Comments welcomed if you didn't like what I did. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I created this ^^ messagebox template for those of us who use messageboxes to show project affiliations. It's bog standard, I just copied the {{WikiProject Bridges}} template, so it doesn't have the nifty image at left (that could be fixed I guess?)that the userbox does. Hopefully some will find it of use. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nations, tribes and groups
How long do we want this list to be for now? I have several articles on tribes I could add, but they are all extinct tribes, and extinct and minor tribes would make for a long list. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- A very valid point, Dalbury. My own opinion is that only recognized tribes, or maybe only those with a somewhat higher degree of historical importance should be included at the list at the Project page; not that I wouldn't like to see every tribe that ever existed there, but simply because, as you say, it would be incredibly long. While we're at this, I may also ask your opinion about including subtribes which have an article about themselves, most notably the subgroups of the Apache (Mescalero, Jicarilla, Chiricahua, etc.) Should we also add them, or consider them already present by listing the main article only? Your input will be very appreciated. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Length by itself is not a major criterion. If it gets too long, portions can be moved into subpages, e.g., extinct tribes. However, I've seen instances where lists are so long that their meaning and content is largely lost. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- In my case, it's also a matter of minor articles about minor tribes, for which solid information is quite sparse. I'll leave my group of minor articles about little-known, extinct tribes off the list for now. Some are still just stubs, and all of them can be expanded. I hope to work on them again, when I have the time. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have much advice on how to handle sub-tribes. I suspect a case-by-case analysis will be required. As I understand it, what is a tribe and what is a sub-tribe or other division of a tribe is often an artificial construct, imposed by we white men to allow the BIA bureaucrats to think they had a handle on the "Indian problem". The extant tribes have now developed their own definitions of who they are, but I'm not sure that helps us in describing pre-Twentieth century tribes. I've only worked on articles on pre-Seminole tribes in southern Florida, and my research doesn't give me much confidence in the delineation of the "tribes" described in the literature. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Length by itself is not a major criterion. If it gets too long, portions can be moved into subpages, e.g., extinct tribes. However, I've seen instances where lists are so long that their meaning and content is largely lost. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- re Apache Tribe: there never was an Apache tribe. They were often enemies and not sub-tribes of common political social grouping. Apache is simply a convenient linguistic/cultural grouping. This is just a note and not an argument for listing them separately on the Project page.
- suggestion: Why not have separate pages based on culture area? These wouldnt need to be shown on the main Project page. Perhaps this will prevent marginalization of less important groups (degree of importance is, of course, a bias of the history writer). Since this Project covers a very large and diverse continent, I think that we should expect incredibly long lists. I guess wouldnt want to be left out because I wasnt important. Question 2: what needs to be on the main page anyway?
- - 22:16, 2006 February 20 User:ish ishwar
- I have come to agree that it would be best to deal with the major groupings in the initial stage, as it would be overwhelming otherwise, and well-contructed articles will have links to the sub-groupings, anyway. However, the point regarding the Apache is well-noted. This might well compare to the Iriquoian tribes. They are historically separate tribes and should be treated as such. --Aaron Walden 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I would bring this up here: Native Americans in the United States failed its first FAC nomination, largely due to issues of referencing and POV. Most of the issues have been worked on, but as one of the larger articles that is included under this Wikiproject, I think that this article deserves a bit more work. I have nominated this article at the United States Collaboration of the Week- please vote or comment. AndyZ 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not part of this project, and I'm not qualified to make a decision on this (and don't have any stake in making one either). The Ward Churchill article has the {{NorthAmNative}} tag on the talk page. However, Churchill's North American native ancestry appears to be a false claim by Churchill. So I was wondering if the Churchill article should really be part of this project? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Even if he weren't of Native American ancestry, his scholarly contributions to the field of Native American studies would merit his inclusion in the project, which is comprehensive of all topics and individuals relating American Indians.--Rockero420 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with Rockero420. See Talk:Ward Churchill for more on this. Basically, I think Doug Bell isn't particularly interested in NA issues, but just wants to snipe at Churchill. Obviously, whatever his ancestry, Churchill wrote lots of books and articles that touch on NA issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly interested in the motivations, whether it was just to "snipe at Churchill" or whatever, however, not only his contributions to the field of Native American studies put him within the scope of this project, so does the controversy regarding his alleged tribal membership, in my opinion. --Aaron Walden 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I already stated that I wasn't particularly interested/knowledgable in NA issues and I wasn't "sniping at Churchill". I was merely raising an issue without any prejudice as to how to handle it. Lulu, you don't have to always disparage my comments. It's actually better to assume good faith, as I try to do with you. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)