Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Mass page moves of biographies

I am seeing a large number of page moves by Montanabw of biographical articles, with the edit summaries of "real name" or "Per WP:Honorific". To me, WP:HONORIFIC is pretty ambiguous (particularly since it does not directly deal with article titles) and the "real name" argument seems at least potentially at odds with WP:UCRN. Has their been any central discussion about this prior to the mass move? If not, what to people think? VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere in the past; we don't call people Queen Elizabeth or President Obama; we do call Queen Latifah by her stage name, though. What I'm doing here is a systemic bias fix; I am moving the articles titled "Chief X" where "Chief X" is not the name of the person, but rather a made-up title. Most I move to "X (Native American leader)" or "X ([Tribal name] leader), a few I am moving to a legal or birth name. I moved another batch a while back, a couple years ago, I think. This was a cleanup of the rest. There are a few that are ambiguous, and I left those, such as Chief Joseph or Chief Seattle, where the actual name is little known and not clear as to preferred transliteration, or if the title is part of a stage name such as Chief Dan George, (or one of the controversial mascots like Chief Wahoo) and thus, I considered most of these individually and in some cases, reviewed sources to see how the name was stated. These people were not named "chief" and "chief" is not even the title given to many of them by their own people. In many cases, it is potentially offensive when applied incorrectly; the determination of when "Chief" is actually used by the tribal nation itself is complex and has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I'm open to reconsidering on a few of these, but most of them are just applying "chief" as a generic honorific - or even a somewhat condescending title. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Chief isn't even an Indian term, it is the white term for a tribal leader. In some cases it is racist. We need to use their name, with a parenthetical as needed. GregJackP Boomer! 07:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, it might be more helpful if you cite relevant policy in your edit summaries and discussion. We don't use Queen Elizabeth because it is ambiguous (criterion #3); parenthetically disambiguating with the name of the tribe seems a reasonable way to avoid this. "President Obama" is a red herring because it is not more recognizable than the actual article title (criterion #1). Am I correct in interpreting here that your position is that we should ignore WP:UCRN because the previous titles were potentially offensive? VQuakr (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy is NPOV, WP:honorific is a guideline. UCRN is not the only guideline, as here a lot of the articles were improperly titled in the first place; I checked the sources cited and clearly, "Chief Foo" wasn't even what historians called a given individual, so in many cases, I was actually complying with UCRN. Whoever created a lot of these articles just named them "Chief Foo" for unknown reasons that can't even be supported by WP:RS or UCRN. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

UCRN is a section within WP:TITLE, which is policy (not guideline). I already mentioned that it was one of the five titling criteria. The policy you are looking for regarding neutrality of titles is WP:NPOVTITLE, also a subsection of WP:TITLE. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, we do not go out of our way to have racially offensive article titles. See, e.g. Jim (Huckleberry Finn), instead of the term used in the books, "Nigger Jim." There are plenty of other examples. Here, some that are still racially offense titles are still used, such as Washington Redskins, Chief Wahoo, Chief Illiniwek, etc., because they are the best title for the article even though they are offensive. On the changes that Montanabw has made, they are not the best title, we should use the individual's actual name. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, is there a specific article move that you think is inappropriate? The articles should be at the real names. Looking through a few of them, that seems to be all that's going on here. The articles I checked seem to be better-aligned with WP policy now that Montanabw has moved them. I haven't read every article that's been moved, but so far it looks like these are all improvements to the 'pedia. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea of moving at least some of these articles to the individual's actual name, where we can reach a consensus on what it was and how to spell it. (see, e.g. Irataba for an example of the problem) In other cases, we may have to keep the English translation of the name simply because the individual is so very famous (i.e. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse) but without the usually wrong and often offensive "Chief" moniker. (And also push for WP:PRIMARY where relevant) There are a very, very few cases where WP:UCRN may apply (I've thought long and hard about Chief Joseph, for example and still have not decided where I sit on that one)

"Real names" is not Wikipedia title policy; "best known as in English" is the policy. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. See WP:Title. Nowhere in the five attributes of a good title is the concept of historically accurate or politically correct. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, the example of Jim in Huck Finn is a classic example. Respect is not "politically correct". Respect is not calling people by offensive, racist terms. Plus, WP:HONORIFIC also states that we don't call people by titles, particularly where the title wasn't even used. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I saw this large set of moves after contesting a bold move at Chief Paulina to a much less recognizable transliteration of his name. I still object to that move (to Pahninee) because there are several geographical features that bear the name "Paulina" named after him. I think my original question has been answered, albeit with a great deal more bluster and drama than necessary. Does anyone object to a move of Chief Paulina to Paulina (Paiute) based on the conversation above regarding the term "chief"? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that, though (Paiute leader) might be a better disambiguation. I'm comparing it to an article like Steve Bullock (Montana politician) where the original dab was to (Montana) and the RM consensus was to add "Politician". Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Done VQuakr (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward, what do people think of starting a naming essay to support decision-making on the specific issues commonly encountered when applying WP:TITLE to indigenous people? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. I sort of did a bunch of cleanup of things that were 10+ years old. I'd say if there is a problem moving forward, maybe, but for now, let's not get into instruction creep. I think I was able to justify most of the moves I made under the existing guidelines and policies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I view supporting essays as less of instruction creep and more formalizing the productive parts of the input provided above. You are probably right that it is not of critical importance, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think such a thing could be useful, if enough of us agree to do it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd participate if someone else started the effort. But my recent experience with these efforts is that they tend toward sound and fury, but go nowhere other than to waste bandwidth. I know that Skookum1 pretty must gave up in despair trying to get actual tribal names used for article titles wen he went up against the USEENGLISH crowd. I think that some research into things done in other areas of wiki (Uluru/Ayers Rock, for example) is worth looking at... there are bigger policy issues at play. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Only one of these came across my watchlist. That particular move creates yet another naming incongruity, as we now have Shakes (Tlingit leaders) and Chief Shakes Historic Site. Speaking of chiefs and of article titles, we also have the inconsistency of David Salmon (tribal chief) and Paul John (Yupik elder), even though the reason we have articles on either person is due to the honorary recognition given to them by their respective peoples, a title commonly known as "Chief". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:European colonization of the Americas

There is a request for comment at Talk:European colonization of the Americas involving a new user that became rather heated, and appears to have been shut down. May be worth having some of the more experienced people here keeping an eye on this to ensure that a constructive and collaborative atmosphere prevails. --Djembayz (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Category help

I really shouldn't have started on this at this time of night. I need some help cleaning up categories like: [[Category:Lakota goddesses]] and all the related stuff that comes with that. Since all the tradish Lakota I know insist these are Spirit Beings, not Goddesses.... Argh. - CorbieV^☊☼ 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. I think lots of these don't need to be divided by sex or gender. I moved them all to Category:Lakota spirit beings, at least for now. But there are cascading levels of naming here as we work up through the categories. - CorbieV^☊☼ 01:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it's appropriate to move articles into appropriate categories and make sure the categories are properly nested within the cat structure. If that happens to empty a category, a bot may come along later and delete the cat altogether, not sure how long it takes, but beats the circus of CfD. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What I could use input on, is, do any traditional folks see these beings as "gods and goddesses"? Everyone I know, every culture I know, doesn't see it that way. It's just a different worldview than the Classical polytheism these cats were obviously based on. So... I started with Lakota as I know how that goes, but as I work my way up the chain, it's getting a bit harder to make the call about all the included cultures, even with terms like "mythology", and whether parenthetics should indicate culture or type of being. I'll muddle through, but if anyone has input, please jump in. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the cats in question. It starts out pretty simple, with one culture's worldview, but as we work up into generalities, it gets more complex:

• Category:Goddesses of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Gods of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Deities of the indigenous peoples of North America
• Category:Goddesses by culture
• Category:Gods by culture

And then all the sub-cats like

• Inuit goddesses‎

I've got some other stuff I need to attend to, but will come back later to see if anyone else has weighed in. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama

Some edit-warring and misinformation being inserted by a SPA. Prob Clear COI issues, as well. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll watchlist. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ayahuasca

Do we have a general Indigenous or other Wikiproject crew that has experts on South and Central American Indigenous issues? If not, this may be something we have to handle. There's been a tendency to make the article primarily about recreational drug use, and I just removed a template requesting help from that quarter, as well as a sidebar primarily classing it in with things like LSD. Ouch. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but maybe ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America. It isn't a super-active project, but someone probably has it watchlisted. Perhaps also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be a good place to post. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Could use some help with this, especially as the user in question doesn't seem to understand what a Totem pole is. See the edit history and talk page. The main user who is determined to fill this out is not sourcing most of the content they add, and does not appear to have a good grasp of the subject or language. Original title was "Pole worship." - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Groaannnn.... Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ou reau ha re

Can anyone add sources to this? I can't find anything online - but it could be a matter of alternative spelling? PamD 08:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find; alternative spelling is always a possibility; even alternative names. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging recently created content fork

France in the American Revolutionary War has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Newly created Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. I encourage interested editors to visit the merge discussion here. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco

Could use some eyes, re- Native-related content. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And also at History of tobacco. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

oh great... the Jamestown stuff should be easy to source, maybe AGF and dig up verification on that on.e? Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Jasper Parrish. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac move

At Talk:Pontiac I have made a move request suggesting that the car brand is not the primary topic of this name. Your input may be helpful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloan dwellings

The Ancestral Puebloan dwellings article and its subarticles include all precontact Southwestern and Fremont culture as being "Ancestral Puebloan." Should these articles be renamed to reflect their true scope or should all non-Ancestral Puebloan entries be removed??? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Can you give us a bit more background on this dispute? Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no dispute. I stumbled upon a giant chunk of lesser edited articles about prehistoric cultures and sites in the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, in which someone lumped all sorts of cultures—the larger ones being Mogollon, Hohokam, and Patayan, which the Ancestral Puebloans clearly states are separate cultures. I poked around on scholar.google.com to see if there was a sudden trend to call every culture in the SW USA/NE Mexico "Pueblo," but no, that does not appear to be the case. 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs)

Apparently, as Talk:Ancestral Puebloan dwellings reveals, the base article was too long, so in 2011 User:Freechild split lists into five smaller articles, List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico, et al.

Is there a mechanism for changing the name of multiple articles at once? "Ancient" is questionable since many were used until Spanish arrived and some are still used today (Taos, Acoma, etc.). "Dwellings" is less than ideal, since the structures also include ceremonial spaces and storage rooms. "Pueblo peoples" covers some but not all the of AZ, NM, and UT listings and none of the Chihuahua listings. I don't know if anyone here has a special interest in archaeological parlance, but it seems better to rename the articles than delete all the information that doesn't pertain to Pueblo/Ancestral Pueblo peoples. Yuchitown (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Yes, but if there are only a few, maybe just list them here and post merge tags where needed - or boldly move the worst offenders. I vaguely remember some edit dispute over the word Anasazi that was resolved by renaming everything Ancient Pueblo people or something...sounds like bad titles are the tip of the iceberg here... ? Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the Chihuahua list since none of those are considered to be Pueblo (the pre-Columbian cultures most likely have Pueblo descendants, but they also have non-Pueblo descendants). I'll wait awhile to see if anyone has a suggestions to the ideal name for the others. I noticed that Wikipedia has a mishmash of Mexican and American terms, since there aren't particularly good names for the region/collection of archaeological cultures in question. 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

Remaining articles:

• Ancestral Puebloan dwellings—this needs an overhaul by someone who really knows the cultures
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Arizona
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Colorado—these appear to all be Ancestral Pueblo, so might not need a rename, except perhaps to be sync with the other lists
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in New Mexico—almost all Pueblo but not "Ancestral" Pueblo
• List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Utah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be best resolved by removing the word "Ancestral Puebloan" from the title and calling them all "ancient dwellings", since the sociological reference is a controversial factor, and the architectural title is not? I simply wanted to put all these similar types of dwellings into a list. Their cultural associations aren't relevant to that intention as far as I can see. • Freechild | talk to me 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Does 450 years ago constitute "ancient"? "Archaeological site" might be too broad since even structures from the 19th century (churches, etc.) can be archaeological. "Precontact" and "Prehistoric" don't fly because pueblos such as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Texas (est. 1682) and El Quartelejo Pueblo in Kansas (est. ca. 1696) are postcontact. Basically, there's not a good overarching term for the region, since Southwest cultures is Americentric and ignores Mexico. This encyclopedia is English-based but not US-based. I see "Oasisamerica" used in categories, which covers the region but is a Mexican term not widely embraced in the US—but it does imply Indigenous only. "Dwelling" is inadequate for reasons listed above.

Googling "Mogollon Sinagua Pueblo Hohokam" doesn't yield promising results for an overarching term. Perhaps List of Oasisamerica sites in Arizona, etc. is the best choice, with lots of redirects? Yuchitown (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Can't we just say "Precolumbian Southwest" or something simple? I had never heard the phrase "Oasisamerica" before. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the challenge. Not all of these sites are pre-Columbian, and these cultures extend to Mexico, so "Southwest" doesn't cover Northwest Mexico. Basically we need a way to describe the cultural region or combined complex of Hohokam, Mogollon, Sinagua, Patayan, and Pueblo cultures (and other, lessser known ones). Yuchitown (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown

This was my challenge in the original article, including your acknowledgment that these cultures extend to Mexico. For that reason List of ancient dwellings of Pueblo peoples in Chihuahua, Mexico should be added back to this conversation. Wherever term is chosen, I hope there is significant consideration given to the interrelatedness of these articles, not to their differences. If it's inappropriate to keep them together, that's find, but I think you see my intention. • Freechild | talk to me 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But none of the sites in Chihuahua were made by Ancient Pueblo peoples. "Pueblo" is not an umbrella term for the people of the region. So far, "Oasisamerica" is the only term that covers the region that takes both the US and Mexico into account. Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown