Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy

---

Aaron and Nick Carter

There is serious question whether these two performers should be listed as "Notable Blackfoot People". The book "Backstreet Brother" is described by the School Library Journal as "totally worthless" and that "almost all of the material is attributed to interviews previously printed in magazines such as Tiger Beat and Top of the Pops." An "unauthorized biography" (as the book describes itself) does not strike me as a reliable source. Neither of the official sites for the two brothers mention anything about being Blackfeet, and neither do their Wikipedia articles.

At the anthropology blog here: http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2444&page=2 a poster says "A lot of people claim 'Blackfoot' without any connection to the Blackfeet Nation. Take a look at the Notable Blackfoot section [in Wikipedia] and you will notice what I mean. Aaron Carter- WTF? The thing that most of these 'Blackfoot' have in common is they have no link to Montana or Alberta."

This should be better sourced (if possible) or removed. HWAshton (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Siksika

According the the Mansfield Library at the University of Montana the Blackfoot Nation in Montana is Siksika. Hyacinth 21:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Usage: Blackfoot versus Blackfeet

I am personally acquainted with numbers of Montana Blackfeet and note that they invariably say "Blackfeet" not "Blackfoot," even in sentences like "I am a Blackfeet." It's the Blackfoot River but the Blackfeet nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.201.149.69 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

That is the official name of the Montana tribe (see Blackfeet), but as far as I know most other Blackfoots (those in Canada) use "Blackfoot", rather than "Blackfeet". That seems to be what this site (which I've always found to be quite reliably accurate) would seem to suggest. --Miskwito 01:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Another voice) I too am personally acquainted with members of the Blackfeet Nation and have visited the reservation in Montana. I am a former Executive Director of the Southwest Museum of the American Indian in Los Angeles and I can assure you that the proper and only name for the tribe in the United States is "Blackfeet". The term "Blackfoot" distinguishes the Canadian branch of the tribe from the American branch. The article on the "Blackfoot" should be edited to reflect the facts of this situation. (Selmer 11:00 26 March 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.230.109 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it should be "Blackfeet" (as the proper adjective describing the tribe, as well as singular and plural members), it seems that the title of this article (and others) should be corrected. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Move?

How about a move to Blackfoot Confederacy? That's how the article starts, and simplifies disambiguation from Siksika (which means blackfoot) and Blackfeet(Southern Piegan)? - TheMightyQuill 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Manitoba?

The article is included in Category:First Nations in Manitoba but doesn't mention manitoba in the text. Is that a mistake? - TheMightyQuill 09:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a mistake, yes. I removed it. --Miskwito 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Had Hudson’s Bay Company employed English Doctor Edward Jenner’s forty one year old technique of injecting cowpox to make people immune to smallpox, they could have prevented the epidemic they created. < POV? Hello71 02:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Marinusswanepoel, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add a link to the Blackfoot Digital Library : http://blackfootdigitallibrary.org/

Marinusswanepoel (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Already done It looks like another editor just did this. Thanks for what appears to be a good link. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

moved

Moved this article from 'Blackfoot' to 'Blackfoot Confederacy' and the dab page to 'Blackfoot'. I have no attachment to the current name, I merely followed the name used in the lede. Similarly, moved 'Blackfeet' to Piegan Blackfeet and then redirected 'Blackfeet' to the dab page. Links to 'Blackfoot' and 'Blackfeet' appeared to be nearly random, and did not follow the distinction made by the articles, so I've left most of them alone. I suspect that most, including the ones that used to link to the Piegan article, belong here, but they're generally too unclear for me to want to risk redirecting them. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I returned the primary topic of Blackfoot to this article. Note that the article titles do not have to follow the names in the ledes. The incoming links did not appear to be random. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't give a damn about what goes where, but the pair of you need to be more careful about leaving talk pages pointing in the right direction. I am sick and tired of clearing up after admins. The histories and move logs are downright incomprehensible now. For Pete's sake start using talk pages and requested move instead of deciding you know best. DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed updating Talk:Blackfoot to point to Talk:Blackfoot Confederacy. I certainly didn't decide I knew best, though -- I restored the prior consensus for the primary topic of "Blackfoot" given that the bold change of it met with your objection. You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole subject is an abject mess. we could do with a complete halt on all page moves relating to it (I defy anybody to understand just what content started out where), and a serious look at all the redirects and the conflicting usages across all related articles. We also need to review all the redirect talkpages. I've done what I can - fixed the more blatantly wrong redirects and any talkpages I've come across in the process, but as Kwamikagami pointed out, linking seems to be largely random. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to 'blackfoot' may not be as bad as I thought (I'll leave it to Hunter to judge), but it seems that most of the links to 'blackfeet' did not specifically intend the Piegan. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackfoot an ethnic group or Blackfoot Confederacy as a political/military alliance

This article should be split. Half of it discusses the culture (language, religion, economy) of the Blackfoot-speaking peoples. Half of it is the history of a political alliance between those peoples and the Sarcee and Gros Ventre called the Blackfoot Confederacy. Its like the difference between an article on Germans, the people, and an article on the German Empire, a state that those people where a part of. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And here I do respectfully disagree. From north of the Line Number 49, it is a mistake to confude the Blackfoot Confederacy with also Treaty Number 7. Treaty No. 7 does not include the so-called "Blackfeet" to the south of the Alberta-Montana border. A fact.

Am I mistaken? But does not Treaty No. 7 include more members of more aboriginal first nations than only the Blackfoot Confederacy? I believe that these facts should be double-checked and triple-checked. Thank you for these valuable contributions.

Treaty No. 7 was negotiated and signed between the aboriginal first nations and the British Crown (and of behalf of Canadians), and is, at least supposedly, acknowledged and upheld by the government and people of Canada even down to the present day (c. 2012 CE). By defintion, it cannot include the so-called "Blackfeet" in Montana (USA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowichanreporter (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't address my question at all. The Confederacy existed before Treaty 7, and separately from it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian or American (or British) English

We seem to be having some confusion over whether to use "practise" or "practice", "while" or "whilst", etc. I am proposing that this article adopt Canadian usage, since the majority of the Blackfoot people, and 3 of the 4 nations, are located in Canada. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree in the hope that least extra editing would result --Sinazita (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Beginner here I am; and I propose a so-called "Calgary Modification" of the Chicago Manual of Style. It is neither a misprint nor a typo -- and never an error -- when British (and English-speaking Canadians) make use of the English language. Around the Commonwealth of Nations even today (c. 2012 CE), most users of the English language utilise the British & Commonwealth spellings. An actual fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowichanreporter (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First European contact?

The article under First European Contact says "Anthony Henday of the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) met a large Niitsitapi group in 1754 in what is now Alberta. The first known meeting with European Americans came in 1806 with the Lewis and Clark expedition."... So, the intent is to say Henday is the first known Euro contact? And the Lewis & Clark group was the first USA contact? Given there were no modern 'national borders' there at that that time, it hits me funny (I guess it's the way it's written). Engr105th (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) On the one hand, I appreciate a great deal of scholarship and research, which is evident in this submission so far; on the other hand, as a citizen, born in southern Alberta, of Canada, I regret to inform the world, that I agree, a "lower 48 states" and pro-Yankee "Bluecoats" bias is evident in the writer's choice of words, and also the selective facts. And some of the facts, selected, by the writer, are VERY SELECTIVE FACTS. Does Wiki-land permit more objective views from north of the "Medicine L:ine" which is to say north of Line Number 49? Wiki-land will gain more credibility when it actually seeks out the inevitably different perspectives of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowichanreporter (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I don't disagree that the Blackfoot hunted as far north as the North Saskatchewan River. However the claim that it's name is "Ponoka" seems fishy to me. Ponoka, Alberta is well south of the N Sask. It is much closer to the Red Deer River. Indeed the name ponoka means "elk" (aka Wapiti) in Blackfoot, and the Red Deer areas got it's name because the British traders in the area though the local wapiti looked like the red deer of Scotland. (see City of Red Deer "How Red Deer Got It's Name"). Unless there is another source for this, it should remain "dubious". --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blackfoot Cherokee

There is plenty of information, numerous stories and folklore on persons of the Blackfoot-Cherokee admixture of the two tribes whom lived in opposite ends of the country (USA with the Blackfoot partially located in Canada). Either the Blackfoot moved into the Southeastern USA from the Upper Plains or the Cherokee moved farther west or northward, it is known the Blackfoot Cherokee are a chapter in the story of two tribal nations when they supposedly met in the late 18th or 19th century. 71.102.13.174 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=topsearchbox.search&v_t=client96_searchbox&q=Cherokee+Blackfoot+Indians