Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:08, 8 August 2014

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

Indigenous peoples of North America NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Past discussions Archive 1 (Feb 2006-Mar 2006) Archive 2 (Apr 2006-Oct 2006) Archive 3 (Sep 2006-Feb 2007) Archive 4 (May 2007-Jul 2007) Archive 5 (Jun 2007-Dec 2007) Archive 6 (Jan 2008-Aug 2008) Archive 7 (Aug 2008-Feb 2009) Archive 8 (Feb 2009-Jul 2009) Archive 9 (Jul 2009–)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Progress report on assessment

Anishinaabe traditional beliefs

Has a virtually empty section saying the main article is Medicine Societies - have we actually got a relevant article? Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yakama Indian Reservation

Apparently one of the most populous in the US, but the box give one third the population that the text does, supposedly from the same census. Needs to be updated and footnoted anyway. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, glad you noticed that. Feel free to fix! Montanabw 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New old images

Commons has a number of newly uploaded old images related to the subject of this project at . Many are uncategorized and might find a use in various articles. Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Had a look through them; some of the terms used in titles are a bit embarrassing.... "Nootka belle", "Siwash woman and child" (at least it didn't say "squaw", though)..... the Cowichan Warrior one is pretty cool, but I'd hesitate to know which ethno page to put it on in case the individual in question isn't from one of the seven groups forming today's Cowichan Tribes band government, and not Halalt or Penelakut or Malahat or another Cowichan people who are not part of that band (whose name really infers "tribes in the Cowichan Valley" rather than Cowichan as a people-name). Main comment here, though, is that quite often indigenous and other editors opine that there is too much emphasis places on individuals and lifestyles of bygone times, i.e. on band government articles, instead of pictures of modern life and individuals; so all these should be used judiciously; I'm fairly familiar with the Commons category-names so will have a go at categorizing them soon.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

New stub: American Indian creationism

Just started this after finding it as a red link. It's a pretty tiny stub but there are numerous sources and I hope we can build it into a decent article and keep it NPOV, which will need collaboration. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Greek article about someone who recently died

I stumbled across el:Έντουαρντ_Άντριου_Χάρτζο which is about an indigenous person of the Americas who apparently died last month, but I havent been able to determine who it is. The name translates as 'Edward Andrew Hartz'. A helpful snippet of translated text is "He was a member of the 4th Signal Battalion 4th Infantry Division of the U.S. and for the services rendered to their country decorated by the Congress in November 2013 together with a further 32 representatives of Indian tribes. For his contribution to the Allied victory was awarded two more times, and after the war he worked as a teacher." If all this is true, it seems English Misplaced Pages should have an article about him (and others decorated recently in November). I slapped tags on the Greek article, and did leave a note with the author el:Συζήτηση_χρήστη:ΑΝώΔυΝος#Έντουαρντ Άντριου Χάρτζο, who does also edit here on enwp occasionally so @ΑΝώΔυΝος: it would be good to have your input also. John Vandenberg 01:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll fix it as soon as possible, kind regards, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is about Edmund Harjo, the Seminole Code Talker. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That's right, but I've already created an article here. Please check and correct name, if necessary. Kind regards, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Turns out Edmond Harjo already had a fairly decent, cited article. Have redirected. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama

Hello. Could knowledgeable person or persons please comment at Talk:Cherokee_Tribe_of_Northeast_Alabama, regarding how/if an article about a tribe with limited recognition should discuss that issue? Many thanks --LukeSurl 15:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually this one looks good because it focuses on the group itself. Typically the problems arise when a group doesn't talk about itself but instead is trying to bolster uncited, spurious connections to historical groups. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for the comment. The question isn't about whether the article should exist, but whether the Cherokee Nation's dismissal of the group should be mentioned in the lead alongside the State (but not Federal)-level recognition. --LukeSurl 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it should.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Chickamauga Wars article title

There is a move request discussion on the title of the Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) article at Talk:Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  03:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Native American religion

We have a tendentious editor on Native American religion, who is reverting and degrading the article by using bad sourcing (blogs, unsourced webpages), re-adding bad sources that are cut, reverting other editors to re-establish bare URLs as sources, and adding heavily repetitive text. Editor is taking all improvements as "attacks" or something, and reverting, but staying under 3RR. More eyes may help stop it from going to the tendentious editor board. Problematic editor has been blocked for sockpuppeting in past. - CorbieV 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Will look. That said, one problem with Native American materials is that a lot of "scholarly" sources are hogwash and some of these blogs and informal web pages are actually accurate, just poorly done. Solid raw URLs can be quickly fixed with reflinks (see "Tools" tab off my user page). But crap editing is crap editing and socking needs to be slapped. I'll see what I think Montanabw 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Follow up:I"m OK with the version of Moxy's last edit; some of the material that other editor is trying to add has a point, but it's being put poorly, with overly emotional phrasing and bad sourcing, IMHO. Montanabw 02:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That whole general area of content is fraught with "bad titles" which are OR or appropriative/misrepresentative in nature, e.g. Category:Haida gods/Category:Haida deities, Category:Kwakwaka'wakw mythology and a lot of that does come from so-called scholarly sources, which as MontanaBW often notes are bunk, and regarded as such by native peoples. Imposing European ideas of deity and "mythology" is very much {{systemic bias}} but as much as the issue does get raised for dealing with, things go on as if normal (when not really acceptable and often very OR, as in naming Sisiutl, a spirit-being, as a "god" and also writing it from the Kwakwaka'wakw context when the word itself is Skwxwu7mesh in origin. So much bunk out there, and yes, quite often COI band/people sites, which are near-invariably POV about history, are where accurate information comes from. The Misplaced Pages "thing" against using blogs as information sources is also a systemic bias, whether about this kind of stuff or e.g. politics or corporatism.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions how you would fix this without raising greater problems? How would we distinguish between those sites which are accurate and those which are not? Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a whitelist/blacklist situation, and greylist for those which are POV but contain facts not seen anywhere else? The hurdle is persuading those who "run" (or presume to) WPRS and WPV or police/wikicop them at RMs/CfDs that some blogs are OK; it would be handy to have a "certified by IPNA list" or some such; one comment I have been seeing a lot of unpublished theses around lately, and not sure how to treat that....unless the thesis is web-published maybe....... the same situation re the validity of blogs vs so-called "reliable" sources i.e. the mainstream media for the most part, is the bias in the latter and often complete fabrication of facts and ongoing editorializing; this applies not just to native affairs but politics in general. In BC, the only really reliable political news is from independent reporters and independent papers, for example. Per native "blogs", this one http://www.dickshovel.com/two.html and its second page http://www.dickshovel.com/two2.html are absorbing reads, and cited....but probably not acceptable to RS-cops in all their all-too-oft severity.Skookum1 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

the gods/deities/mythology thing I've used Transformer (spirit-being) instead of "immense shape shifting creature" as was in Camchin.Skookum1 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Coyote (mythology) seems particularly "weak", and used to be maybe Coyote (trickster) or Coyote (spirit); the "mythology" dab there now is probably because of the existence of the "mythology" cats/paradigm......a wiki-compromise/equivocation that, like so many, fails in validity and context.Skookum1 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Masters' and Doctoral theses have been used as RS in the past on other articles, I'd say they can be defended if they have good sourcing themselves, evidence of review by professorial types and such. Montanabw 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

After they have been submitted, they are regarded as being published. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Masters theses are sometimes relatively trivial papers. It would have to be exceptional for me to be happy with it - perhaps the sole piece of work for the degree (ie no exams, just the paper), and that's just for starters. I've seen enough of them to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'd say the quality of the research is what counts, particularly if they did things like interview tribal elders or spiritual leaders, that sort of thing. Montanabw 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Coast Salish defensive sites is an example of an article spawned by one paper and it seems two of the sources used for that paper; the old title of that page was identical to that of the paper; it's about one location in the lowermost Fraser Canyon; not all Coast Salish defensive sites. Salishan oral literature started similarly, with only Skwxwu7mesh and Selisch (Montana Salish) as elements; its title has also been changed from the original; "oral literature" to me is a mild oxymoron; Salish oral tradition is "safer" and more authentic; I haven't had time to add various other-tribe materials to it due to....never mind. Like the other, it's an omnibus title with particularist content. On the other hand, one of the best pieces of modern writing on the Fraser Canyon War is a master's thesis in geography from, I think, UVic, and in its preamble discusses the interesting chasm between US and Canadian sources on the shared history of the Pacific Northwest and the triple reality of the non-indigenous populations; British, American and Chinese. The author was a student of Cole Harris, whose The Resettlement of British Columbia is a population/historical geography (he's a geographer). So not all these are bad, but yes, some are trivial in nature, or have been used as the basis of articles on what should be general topics with broader and deeper refs. And yes, often without "elder content"...a similar situation in autobiographies and topics such as war history or settlement history are not generally used for history articles on non-indigenous titles/content. Authenticity of content should be paramount; not that it is just in print and might have reviews and is therefore "reliable".Skookum1 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw wrote, "one problem with Native American materials is that a lot of 'scholarly' sources are hogwash and some of these blogs and informal web pages are actually accurate, just poorly done." I agree completely. Which is why, when editing in this topic, I'm far more prone to leaving in unsourced text if I know it to be accurate. In this particular case, though, the sources were not accurate, but were non-Native sources with bad info that didn't source the content. I have no idea why the user was so attached to them. Moxy's edit looks to be the way I left it, prior to "The Good Doctor" editorializing again. As I told "The Good Doctor," most of his points are valid, but they are already made in the article, and he doesn't need to constantly re-state them and editorialize. All that said, I agree with comments here that the article is rather a mess and needs a lot more cleanup than I've managed to do in this initial run at it. Thanks for adding it your watchlists and moving forward with it. - CorbieV 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The very huge problem with this argument is that it leads to a subversion of wikipedias criteria for reliable sources, which in turn leads to original research. Who decides which academic books are "hogwash" and which personal websites are "pretty accurate"? I personally dont trust either Skookum1 or Montanabw to make that judgment. I wouldnt even trust myself to make that judgment most of the time. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you also don't trust your own judgement any more than ours, lest we have a serious discussion about how On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.  ;-) That said, it is pretty easy to spot the "hogwash" in academe by their evidence of either race bias or over-romanticization of Native people or culture. It's also not that difficult to assess quality native sources by looking at issues of authorship, support by the tribe or tribal elders, and so on. A solid group of three or four knowledgable editors can suss it out. I remember back a few years ago when we were trying to bust the ItsLassieTime sock (and then clean up the hundreds of copyvios that user created) I had the worst time trying to remove a bit in a rodeo article that user inserted that they doggedly clung to because it was sourced to some scholarly work by some individual who clearly knew squat about rodeo but somehow managed to get her article past some peer reviewers- it contained a claim that EVERY rodeo began with a parade down the main street of the host town, which is utter nonsense (yes, many do, but far from all). That's an example of academic "hogwash." One has to remember that occasionally WP:IAR applies. Montanabw 03:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New discussion at AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inu-Yupiaq. Montanabw 17:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Google map added as EL to List of Alaska Native tribal entities

Is this acceptable as an EL for this article? - see also WP:ELN#Editor adding Google maps he/she created using Misplaced Pages sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I tossed it as not WP:RS. Montanabw 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Misplaced Pages and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Misplaced Pages's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Will anyone be at Wikimania? I will be there and would enjoy meeting anyone interested in this project. I've recently been trying to get more involved! Kaitymh (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Sioux Lawsuits

Dear indigenous peoples experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it and begins improving it. Any takers? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no time to work on this, but I userfied it into my own sandbox, so if no one else steps up, it will be in long term storage for later. Montanabw 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Montanabw. You moved it, but it still has the notification that it may be deleted under dg-g13. Just make any improvement and save, and that will delay deletion for six months. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

American Indian or Native American?

There's currently a discussion on Washington Re****ns page about whether "American Indian" or "Native American" would be better to use in the body of the article. I am under the impression "Native American" is preferred, but honestly am not well read on the subject. Would informed folks mind commenting on the talk page and voice their opinion and reasoning? Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Chinook Jargon place names

Category:Chinook Jargon place names has been nominated for deletion/upmerging, with a suggestion that List of Chinook Jargon place names be upmerged. Please add any comments to the CfD.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous Knowledge Experiment presentation at WikiIndaba 2014 is now online

The WikiIndaba 2014 sessions are now online at YouTube. This includes a presentation on an Indigenous Knowledge Experiment in Namibia. Informative and recommended. -- Djembayz (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Native American tribes in Maryland

Article request: Would anyone be willing to create an article on Native American tribes in Maryland, along the lines of Native American tribes in Virginia? Thanks. Solar-Wind (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible bias of Native American editors

A notice on this page currently goes like this, but when I added the bold text, Montanabw quickly reverted it, and again when I put it back.

He views it alternately as condescending and as redundant because there aren't more than "five" Native American editors who will be reading it anyway. I dispute these claims, because (1) it only states that Native American editors can be as biased as anyone else when editing pages about their own cultures (I think it'd be more condescending to put them on a pedestal as though they can do no harm) and (2) if there being few Native editors means this part of the message isn't necessary, why is the rest of the message necessary? I'd like to seek a consensus here. Tezero (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It IS condescending, as it really is saying "hey you silly Native people, you are too biased to be objective and we smart white people are going to point that out to you, and if you don't like, it go elsewhere." What a pile of nonsense. I happen to be 100% white Northern European Protestant, but I don't see similar cautions directed to me at WP:SWEDEN or WP:GERMANY or ] or similar such places. Frankly, the bit about the Native wikis probably should go too. This is probably one reason there are very few editors who self-identify as Native American/First Nations here (though a plethora of "I have some Native ancestry, I think" folks). I'm snarking to say five, but given that I am white and only about three wikipedians have self-identified at this project as of significant Native heritage AND actively editing (well, one just retired) I may not be exaggerating. Oh yeah, and I'm also not a "he, though that is irrelevant here. Montanabw 01:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's OTHERSTUFF; I think this kind of notice should be on those projects, too, but I'm unwilling to boldly add it there if the discussions will go like this one has so far. What do you mean "this is probably one reason" - do you think a significant number of Natives read the edit while it was live? Or do you think it's part of some nebulous larger trend of demeaning non-whites? (If so, I encourage you to re-read the part about all peoples being susceptible to this. For example, my heritage to the extent that it's represented in my userboxes is Czech, Welsh, and Arab, and I fully accept that I could be biased in favor of any of those peoples.) Apologies about your gender, though; I could've sworn I'd seen the "male" box on your page, but neither gender is there; that must've been someone else's I had open at the time. Tezero (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal, and note that it was included/added by User:Uyvsdi who claims to be indigenous and an academic, but reverted the name of the Skokomish tribal government from the one I'd moved it to, which is their own official name on their own website, claiming it wasn't official and moving it back to the US government's name for them (probably an outdated list). THAT is systemic bias. Also at least one aboriginal editor has left in disgust; the names for his people's articles that he started have been changed by overly-earnest guideline-happy Wikipedians who know nothing about his people and are obsessed with "Use English" and 'anglicized' names to ones used by government/corporate sources i.e. the colonialist biased sources; Sta7mes is now Stawamus (the older anglicization from a time when the 'w' could denote a glottal stop, which the 7 is, and Skwxwu7mesh both category and main page (and template) were anglicized to Squamish by people who didn't like the 7 and thought it was "gibberish", one didn't even know who they were and thought they were the Suquamish and didn't have any idea, and didn't care, when it was pointed out that Squamish in English has a very dominant primary usage as the name of a prominent town in British Columbia; and taht many of the Skwxwu7mesh population aren't in that town but in North Vancouver (perhaps the majority). I was denounced and baited and insulted for trying to RM and CfD that back to where the indigenous author had created them at.

I'm also (very) white, like Montanabw, and one snotty admin has crapped on me for daring "to speak for them [when I'm white and have no right to)"...but they wn't speak for themselves (because Misplaced Pages alienates them by high-schoolish invocations of academic shibboleths and not-correct language etc), or when they do, as with @OldManRivers: (I'm pinging him and know him outside wikipedia in FB but he won't see it, he thinks Misplaced Pages is bullshit because of all this crap); but I'm "pro-native" and in fact built most of the indigenous hierarchies and indigenous article structure in BC and parts of Canada and the PacNW; now completely messed up by people from abroad invokoing colonially-biased sources, and in the case of Squamish claiming that the widespread Canadian meaning of that term is irrelevant, that "global usage" should prevail, i.e. academic sources in the UK and US; even though Canadians sources far outweigh them, in other words Canadian sources are discredited and the big countries sources are supposed to prevail; but in that case they dno't even outnumber them. So there's an anti-Canadian systemic bias I've encountered too. This also was used to bugger up an attempt to revert BOLD changes by a "certain someone" which was across the board and global, and installed outdated and/or derisive names, in RMs closed by someone from Ireland' who boasted that her lack of expertise allowed her to be neutral which she was not (Chipewyan people is one example of that (Denesuline is the modern term, part of a large growing reality in Canada where indigenous endonyms are now an accepted norm, which is shit all over by "global usage" fanatics who don't even read the subject matter or have ever edit the articles but want to pontificate on titles and such, and use their collective ignorance and paternalistic attitudes to "vote" against needed name changes. A raft of these have gone through, Montanabw knows some of the ones I mean, where archaic terms were imposed, and the RMs were vociferously fought off, with the mover claiming that the native peoples' names for themselves were irrelevant and that academic sources should prevail...namely t hose of the linguistics community abroad (who need to update themselves); he went so far as to claim that native sources were "parochial" as if academic and government sources weren't.

It's true that User:OldManRivers' content in the many articles he started (including many of the Kwakwaka'wakw ones, he's both Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw/'Namgis ("Nimpkish" in teh old anglicization) have POV content issues, as do many others, such as the Nuu-chah-nulth series (which btw montanabw seem heavily contributed/edited and expanded by their own people/governments/orgs and internal scholars) but that's a different matter than systemic bias, which is about who t he sources are and who they are not. And re native editors contributing with the native viewpoint, the reality is that in many cases they are the only source, especially for individual bands and tribal governments; yet Uyvsdi claimed re the Nuxalk that "there are always sources" without even having a grasp of who or what she was talking about, or providing any (this was in relation to the need for a Nuxalk art article). People weighing in with sysetmically biased sources adn t heir viewpoints and terminologies is a Big Bad Issue, but since indigenous editors give this "white man's book" a wide berth because it doesn't speak from their frameworks or even get their names right means that people who think they are 'dead' peoples and not living, breathing people are having sway here; I spent a chunk of last night changing some really improper content in ] where they were spoken of as historical peoples with modern tribes/bands only "identifying with the historical peoples" as if they weren't them de facto. The tendency of linguists and other academic sources/editors to treat people as laboratory subjects or museum objects is part of the problem; as is the wikipedia mob rule in RM s and CfDs and elsewhere where the uneducated-on-the-topic or completely illogical/unsubstantiated comments are treated as "votes" - quantity over quality. I support the removal of those lines, they're patronizing to the piont of being insulting and alienating.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also in a similar fashion, native official sources are generally discredited in favour of government/corporate/foreign sources, even though they are, as in the case of the the Skokomish, sovereign governments; in BC where there are few treaties they claim outright sovereignty, as is being supported in court decisions on constitutionality and such; so whose sources is the valid one? The colonizing power (US or Canada) or that of the sovereign nations who are the topic?Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is not a helpful addition, writers writing about groups that are not their own are of course just as biased as writers writing about their own group. We would never suggest that WHite Americans should be particularly careful when writing about White American culture due to the fact that their views might be biased. The lines should be removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• But aside from, say, Japanophiles, they'd be biased in opposite directions, and I daresay bias is generally more strong towards one's own group. And I think this about white Americans very well could be suggested; it's just that there's no White American WikiProject. (I wouldn't object to one being created, but it would be massively controversial.) Tezero (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree anyone who participates in a project based on interest has some kind of bias - frankly the idea that ethnic group membership constitutes a source of bias is borderline racist. What does the direction of bias have to do with this - that would just mean that the note should also include a note to non- native american editors that they might be biased against native americans. And for your other point I would estimate that about half of all wikiprojects are white american wikiprojects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Half? That seems kind of arbitrary. It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years, but it's not as though the projects are artificially excluding other races. As for the note about bias against Native Americans, that's implied by the link to the Systemic bias page. And against what races is this idea "borderline racist"? I think it's true for all identity groups, and not only ethnic ones. That's basically what systemic bias is; I take issue at the idea that Native Americans can't be subject to it just like the rest of us. Tezero (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is borderline racist, not because it discriminates (assuming that you have made the same suggestion at all the other ethnic and national wikiprojects), but because it reduces to individual editors to their ethnic group membership. Just like not all white people are biased against native americans or other ethnic groups, neither can we assume that all members of other ethnic groups are biased in favor of their own group, because people are individuals and should be treated as such. A conflict of interest is exactly this - a conflict of individual interests, not of the possibility of group membership producing some bias. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, why do you then support the "Systemic bias" inclusion? That's only implying, "If those nasty white people are mean to you and you can't handle it yourself, we'll help." It reduces both Natives and non-Natives to those identity markers. Tezero (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems you dont understand what systemic bias is. It has nothing to do with nasty white people or with identity markers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then, what is it, if you think you understand better than I do? And why should we pretend Native Americans can't too be subject to it? Tezero (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYSTEMIC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

" It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years, but it's not as though the projects are artificially excluding other races." LOLOL you gotta be kidding me. In Canada, they were stripped of their status as human beings, a system of deliberately dehumanizing and stripping them of their culture by taking their children and beating the hell out of them for daring to speak their own languages, to end their reliance on the fecundity of the land and turn them into workers, a system were missionaries and academics persuaded them to burn or sell their artwork and regalia in the name of Christendom, where academics and politicians persistently treated them as bound for extinction; even in 1970, the Chretien "White Paper" (a kind of government report/policy proposal) called for outright assimilation (Chretien was later PM, and current PM Harper is on the same course, as have been the last two "Liberal" premiers of BC, who represent the mining and other resources industries who have raped the land that natives still technically own (no treaties were ever signed in most of BC).

Your very attitude is part of the self-justifying "systemic bias" you seem to have no grasp whatsoever is about; they do not want white people dictating to them what they should be called, what should be done with them etc (unless, of course, those white people agree with them), they do not want old fusty reports by churches (the same churches who raped and beat and killed their children), the governments who disenfranchised them and sold their land from beneath their feet, and forbade them to leave their reserves without a permit, and the corporations who participated in that theft, and have fought against native rights and were the ones behind the deliberate smallpox now known to have been govt-organized in colonial BC. You pretend that there are two sides to every story; that's like saying the Devil is equal to God, or evil has the same right to speak as good, or that falsity and pretense have as much value as truth and decency.

The line is offensive, purely and simply; if you don't get that why don't you go visit Wounded Knee or the Navajo Nation or Attawapiskat or the various bands/reserves of the St'at'imc focussed on Lillooet. Or go read OldManRiver's blog, "Liberated yet?" (he's very educated and articulate and, unlike you, under no illusions about "fairness"...because his people have never had any, quite frankly) and see what they have to say about "systemic bias"; don't tell them what it is, they already bloody well know all about it. #IdleNoMore. Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Government sources are biased, mainstream media is incredibly biased, academic sources in their ivory towers have been and, despite some posturing, and in Canada a very aboriginally-sympathetic group of professors and authors there is exception to that history of academic "bottling and pickling" of cultures that those institutions participated in the theft of cultural objects in the name of "preservation" or "combatting superstition". that lots of Misplaced Pages articles are based on the Catholic Encyclopedia is noxious. Native sources should have more weight than misrepresentations and lies and omissions in e.g. the Vancouver Sun, or the outright slander that SunMedia (Canada's FoxNews) has put out, particularly in their campaign against Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More movement. Your gall in asking US to define systemic bias as if none of this were a reality, that the news, government, corporate information avalanche against them has been fair, and that they should be advised of their bias, is hilariously and also sickeningly vulgar and rude.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am Native American and after reading Tezero's attitude above and comments like "It's true that significant events in politics, technology, etc. in the Western world have mostly been at the hands of white people for hundreds of years" and noticing what page he chose to wade into and see how ugly he could make it, he's lucky it hasn't gotten a lot uglier like it easily could have. All I can say is I sincerely hope I don't see his name on any more Native articles or ever run into him again. 71.246.155.198 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• NA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• NA-importance Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles