Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 15) (bot |
|||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
::Hello, {{U|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. —[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC) |
::Hello, {{U|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. —[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk: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, '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews3|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. [[User:Mabeenot|–Mabeenot]] ([[User talk:Mabeenot|talk]]) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:11, 29 June 2014
Indigenous peoples of North America NA‑class | |||||||
|
|
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
Click on [show] for progress bar for the Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brief recap of the Native American Literature Symposium 2014 presentation result
At this year's Native American Literature Symposium, there was a presentation panel called "Wikindigenous: Creating Space For Native American Writing". There was tremendous interest with this panel, and hopefully we have convinced enough people to join WP:IPNA and begin writing and expanding on topics that we cover. Additionally, a wonderful suggestion was made that in the future NALS venues, there ought to be a Wikipedia Editathon activity hosted. I have great hopes. Are there any other venues you can think of that may bring in more IPNA-topic experts to join and contribute to our efforts here? CJLippert (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/NMAI COMM535 2014 was successful. Have there been any pdf/handouts made to invite/introduce people to Wikipedia? There's a lot of resources once you join, but it's a challenge to get people to make the step of creating an account. I'm part of a panel in a Native conference next week that features several language groups, so would be happy to hand out fliers for the English Wikipedia and Indigenous language Wikis start are still going. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Scoping and identifying potential participants to form a new IPNA focus daughter-project
Currently with have the Anishinaabe project, which is a daughter project of IPNA, thus its shortcut is WP:IPNA/Nish. In the past, we have also talked about having other daughter projects. But as it seems no body is volunteering, I wonder if we can scope and identify potential participants by surveying the topical articles and sending a note to the editors of those articles. One such daughter project that was suggested in the past was one that covers the Eskimoan peoples: Aleut, Yupik, Iñupiat, Inuvialuit, Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Kalaallit. Should I try this scoping process going and see if we can get dedicated people who are knowledgeable in that topic area to systematically evaluate and identify articles relating to these arctic peoples? CJLippert (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is already WP:WikiProject Arctic and WP:WikiProject Greenland, which, like so many other WikiProjects, have fallen silent in recent years. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
AfC submission - 31/03
Hello there! Could we get a hand at determining if this article should be accepted? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chaveyo. Thanks for the help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Two-Spirit and Two-Spirit identity theory
Two-Spirit could use more Native eyes on it, and Two-Spirit identity theory probably needs to be massively cut down, any relevant content left merged into the main article, then the latter turned into a redirect. See talk pages of both articles. Thanks. - CorbieV☊ 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
AfC submission - 04/04
Wikipedia:Aboriginal Will-Making. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Na-dene and Yeneseian said to stem from a Beringian population
See [1] and [2]. North American Na-Dene family (traditionally spoken in Alaska, Canada and parts of the present-day U.S.) and the Asian Yeneseian family are said to "both appear to descend from an ancestral language that can be traced to the Beringia region. Both Siberia and North America, it seems, were settled by the descendants of a community that lived in Beringia for some time. In other words, Sicoli says, "this makes it look like Beringia wasn't simply a bridge, but actually a homeland—a refuge, where people could build a life." Which links to other recently reported research. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that it had been known and undisputed for at least 45 years that Na-Dene is related to Yenisean, but I did notice that this was recently reported as if it were breaking news or something... I might be missing something, but what exactly is new here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just learned from Dené–Yeniseian languages that much work has been done more recently, but I'm sure I first heard of this connection in the 1968 Britannica... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis is victory of Edward J. Vajda (2008). But, writer Joseph Stromberg not used to name "Vajda"; very interesting! Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's phylogenetic research is exceptional evidence for this hypothesis. --Kmoksy (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merritt Ruhlen - The origin of the Na-Dene. long Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 13994–13996, November 1998. Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford. -- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ruhlen's Dene-Yeniseian (included Haida) is worn and Vajda's Dene-Yeniseian (excluded Haida) is current --Kmoksy (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't the Beringian origin new? It's also interesting because of recent work suggesting that there was a long stay in Beringia before humans moved on to the Americas - and some back-migrated. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Dougweller, the back-migration from Center Beringia to inland Siberia is new. Thanks, Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton, thanks. Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's this phylogenetic research is very very valuable and unmatched and need to transfer to the page (but my English is not enough). --Kmoksy (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- - For some odd reason the link above does not work for me. Is it clear that they say "CENTRAL Beringian - as in whats under water now". The old papers suggest they were from the bering Strait coast line after the area was under water again - thus to most implying boat based people. Is the new paper pushing the date back to when the land bridge was still there? -- Moxy (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Dougweller, the back-migration from Center Beringia to inland Siberia is new. Thanks, Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton, thanks. Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's this phylogenetic research is very very valuable and unmatched and need to transfer to the page (but my English is not enough). --Kmoksy (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't the Beringian origin new? It's also interesting because of recent work suggesting that there was a long stay in Beringia before humans moved on to the Americas - and some back-migrated. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ruhlen's Dene-Yeniseian (included Haida) is worn and Vajda's Dene-Yeniseian (excluded Haida) is current --Kmoksy (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merritt Ruhlen - The origin of the Na-Dene. long Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 13994–13996, November 1998. Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford. -- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis is victory of Edward J. Vajda (2008). But, writer Joseph Stromberg not used to name "Vajda"; very interesting! Mark A. Sicoli and Gary Holton's phylogenetic research is exceptional evidence for this hypothesis. --Kmoksy (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just learned from Dené–Yeniseian languages that much work has been done more recently, but I'm sure I first heard of this connection in the 1968 Britannica... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
First, they say "Our goal here is not to address the validity of the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis nor the type of linguistic data used to support it. Rather, we address the questions of what it means for migration theories if the DY connection is true and how we can rigorously test hypotheses relating linguistic dispersals with population migrations." They say "in Beringia" and "While we propose the first linguistically grounded argument for radiation out of Beringia, Tamm et al. [38] have proposed a strikingly parallel set of claims using mtDNA markers to argue for a “Beringian Standstill” before both a rapid early coastal migration into North America and back-migrations from Beringia into Asia." There's also a map with arrows which start within the Beringian refuge. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Aha! Just as I suspected, So on the surface they present it as just more work on the Na-Dene-Yenisean connection, but with that statement it becomes obvious that inside the Trojan horse they are trying to implant the notion that all the other unrelated language groups of North America must have also had the same origin. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? Because I have and I can't see what you are suggesting in the article. What have I missed? The languages in the illustrations don't include the ones I presume you are talking about. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- This first came to my attention a couple weeks ago when I saw it reported as a major breaking headline in the lamestream idiot media, "AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES NOW PROVED TO BE RELATED TO RUSSIAN!" No, I am not kidding. When I read the article with that headline, I saw it was the same Na-Dene-Yenisean connection I have read about all my life. But you see what neurons they are attempting to rearrange here, the theme of all these articles is "This discovery would serve as final proof once and for all, that ALL native Americans migrated by walking from Siberia, and it puts to rest once and for all the silly notion that any native Americans could have been intelligent enough to have any concept of what a 'boat' is." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? Because I have and I can't see what you are suggesting in the article. What have I missed? The languages in the illustrations don't include the ones I presume you are talking about. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Aha! Just as I suspected, So on the surface they present it as just more work on the Na-Dene-Yenisean connection, but with that statement it becomes obvious that inside the Trojan horse they are trying to implant the notion that all the other unrelated language groups of North America must have also had the same origin. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're seeing conspiracies where they don't exist. Anyone ignorant enough to think Yeniseian means Russian surely hasn't a clue about the different hypotheses of how people first arrived in America, let alone is actively propagating one of them through some hidden agenda. — kwami (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Who said anything about a conspiracy? You are the first one to mention that term. There has got to be a perfectly logical reason why persons of such intellectual merit are the ones being selected to compose lamestream media headlines. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're seeing conspiracies where they don't exist. Anyone ignorant enough to think Yeniseian means Russian surely hasn't a clue about the different hypotheses of how people first arrived in America, let alone is actively propagating one of them through some hidden agenda. — kwami (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Possible origin of the Great Spirit
THE ORIGIN OF THE SPIRIT (SOUL)
Before written history, man, trying to explain the world around them, relied on story telling, song, dance and poems. Man tried to make sense of its environment. In terms of evolution the "caveman" was as intelligent as we are, but did not have the knowledge, about nature, that we have now
Walking past the "Spirit Catcher", a sculpture on the shores of Kempenfelt Bay in Barrie, Ontario, Canada, I pondered over its name, it was a "wind" catcher. It looks like a stylized bird with "feathers" which move in the wind. It occurred to me that in native folklore, the wind was considered a spirit. This started a train of thought that intrigued me ever since.
The wind was a force one could feel, but not see, one could see what the wind did. It was an invisible force that could not be controlled and was a very mighty force, or spirit ruling the earth. When a baby was born, a small part of that spirit "breath" would enter the body and gave the baby life. God breathes life into Adam’s nostrils (Genesis 2#7). When some one died this small spirit or soul would leave the body and rejoined the Big Spirit. A baby was therefore not considered to be a separate human being until it had taken its first breath. This is still considered to be the case in some cultures. In Denmark some will still open the window when someone dies to let the “spirit” out. Some religions have now changed this concept quite recently and consider that a human embryo is the start of an independent life. Keep in mind that the opposition to birth control and abortion has little to do with a "moral" principle but rather with a method to create as many followers in the tribe as possible and thus making it stronger. To infer that "breath" was the soul was a very logical explanation. The word “spirit” is derived from latin “spiritus” meaning “breath” and “spirare” meaning “breathe”. Consider the fact that breath, spirit, soul and ghost are words essentially meaning the same thing throughout history. It is still with us. Ghosts, spirits are still associated with chilly, drafty air flows.
Ben Andrews, benjaminandrews@mac.com April 24, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.9.8 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
New old images
Commons has a number of newly uploaded old images related to the subject of this project at [3]. 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 Wikipedia 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 (chat) 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
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 t c 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 t c 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it should.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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 t c 14:14, 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(talk) 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia "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)
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(talk) 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(talk) 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)
- 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(talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
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(talk) 03:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
New discussion at AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inu-Yupiaq. Montanabw(talk) 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?[4] - see also WP:ELN#Editor adding Google maps he/she created using Wikipedia sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
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(talk) 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)