Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

The template for “Anishinaabe Culture” divided into two templates: "Anishinaabe Culture" and "Anishinaabe Politics"

IMO, these are separate topics. For the former I edited the existing template including creating more groups. For the latter I just did a copy and paste onto a new template thus it needs much additional work. --Denise B-K (talk)

Native American and First Nations law resources

I have added a new section in our IPNA main page on Native American and First Nations law resources with subsections for the U.S. and Canada. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Native American and First Nations law resources These resources may prove helpful to participants of this project in finding and researching Indian law and legal issues regarding tribal recognition, citizenship, enrollment, repatriation, environmental justice issues and sacred places protection. This is just a start, please feel free to add to the list of resources. Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you so much. Yuchitown (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a user page draft in preparation to create a list article: User:Netherzone/List_of_Native_American_and_First_Nations_law_resources - Feel free to contribute to it!

It would be wonderful if interested participants and members of this WikiProject help to improve it before it's moved to article space. I've just begun to scratch the surface of this vast topic, there is so much more to add. These resources are useful for research, article improvements and in seeking consensus on content disputes.

Also wondering if there should be two list articles, one for Native American, Native Hawaiian and Native Alaskan, and another for First Nations. Any feedback or thoughts are welcome. Netherzone (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• List of Native American and First Nations law resources is now in main space. Please feel free to edit and improve it. The First Nations section could use some help. I hope the list useful to the community! I will put a link on the IPNA main page if there are no objections. Netherzone (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

United Houma Nation

Noting that all information about the United Houma Nation non-profit organization is in the article for Houma people and United Houma Nation redirects there. I think the United Houma Nation could and should be its own article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Carcieri v. Salazar has a redlink in the see also section: Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak. See also sections are only supposed to link to actual articles but I don't really want to just remove the link without asking around to see if someone might be able to create said article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

History of Native Americans in the United States

Move discussion of History of Native Americans in the United States, discussion: here. Could use input from editors who work on Indigenous topics. Yuchitown (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Chichimeca Jonaz people

Can someone please find and add reliable sources to this article? There are two articles, one Spanish and another Catalan, which could be used as a basis for expansion and sourcing. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Lots of problems with editing of Lumbee right now.

A mess. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

With one editor adding stuff to Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians which seems dubious. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Lumbee semi protected now. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And the Lumbee PR manager has set a deadline of 8:30 pm tomorrow to implement the changes they want! Doug Weller talk 20:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like, at best, a serious conflict of interest on the part of the PR manager. Intothatdarkness 20:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of the Plains of Abraham

Battle of the Plains of Abraham has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed title change of article Pow-wow (folk magic) to Braucherei

The current title of the article, Pow-wow (folk magic) is cultural appropriation using a Native American word to describe a Pennsylvania Dutch-American cultural "folk magic" practice. As such it is inaccurate, and possibly culturally insensitive. This folk magic practice did not include Native American peoples, nor was it a Native American ceremonial or celebratory practice. The article should be moved to the actual word for the Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic practice: Braucherei.

A google n-gram search found that Powwowing (plural for the folk-magic phenomenon) was trending downwards in use through the years, whereas Braucherei was trending upwards. Brauche was used as well but not as frequently as Braucherei, and Brauchau received no hits.

Feedback is requested on the article talk page found here: Talk:Pow-wow (folk magic). Netherzone (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have the stomach to review Lumbee? :)

Pretty contentious article. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh lord, no. Maybe more scholarly work will be published. Yuchitown (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Television shows

Another editor pointed out that many Native actors/directors/etc. in articles about Category:Television shows about Native Americans don't have tribal affiliations. I created a general list/reference with cites on User:Yuchitown/actors. Please use these if they are helpful, and please feel free to make corrections or let me know if I've got any incorrect information. Nany of the Reservation Dogs episodes have their own articles. Yuchitown (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Inuit -> Inuk

Just an FYI, User:64.231.225.81 is mass changing Inuit to Inuk in sentences like "the Inuk woman" with the edit summary "Inuk is the singular form of Inuit". I have no idea whether this is correct and this isn't intended as a criticism, just figured it could use a pair of eyes from someone with more knowledge of this area than my stumbling on it recent change patrolling. (And if it's correct, great work & thanks to the IP!). Rusalkii (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It is correct, Inuk is singular for Inuit. Webster's dictionary:[1]; Government of Canada:[2]; The Canadian Encyclopedia:[3]; Collins dictionary:[4]; Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada[5] and many more such sources are available. Netherzone (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

As a matter of process, I strongly oppose the mass changes without a consensus here along the lines of WP:Mass editing. On the merits, I also disagree:

1. I agree that "Inuk" is a valid word, as shown by the links to "Inuk" entries in the dictionaries.
2. However, the dictionaries also endorse the apparently unrestricted use of "Inuit" as an adjective. In particular, Webster is perfectly OK with "Inuit" as an adjective attached to a singular noun, see [6] ("an Inuit settlement").
3. Since "Inuit" is apparently OK. I object to a mass replacement of a seemingly valid (and well-known) word by a word that very few people use or even know: using Google ngrams (the frequency of use of Inuit vs Inuk is about 40:1, see Google ngrams). Yes, this ngram comparison lacks the context - but for both words and by very wide margin, so I expect it to be valid in all contexts, too. Some examples in context:
   • Inuit/Inuk settlement, Inuit/Inuk carver - the Inuk versions are not on the radar at all: [7], [8]
   • Inuit/Inuk man/woman - 3:1 [9], [10] - the "Inuk" apparently is not popular even when it applies to a single person

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no objection to using "Inuk" when writing the new texts. However, a wholesale replacement of a popular word with a little-known one does not seem like a good idea to me. Викидим (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw those edits too. Gregory Younging's Elements of Indigenous Style says Inuit can be an adjective. It says "This Inuk is a celebrated Inuit musician" is correct and "This musician is an Inuk" and "He is an Inuk musician" are both incorrect (Younging, 2018, p. 66–67), but I question that. The Canadian Encyclopedia's entry that Netherzone shared above suggested that Inuk could be used as an adjective. The Inuit Art Foundation, whom I trust since most of them are Inuit from diverse communities, uses Inuk as an adjective for individuals, "the first Inuk printmaker" and "an unsuspecting Inuk" (IAF), but on the same page, "the most widely recognized Inuit artist." It appears Inuk should only be used when discussing one individual person, and Inuit should be used for anything involving all Inuit (e.g. Inuit culture, Inuit history). Yuchitown (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of the changed sentences seem to be "Inuit [description]", e.g. Inuit artist, Inuit carver, Inuit politician, about an individual. Rusalkii (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Per my research, even this use is pretty tenuous. Almost all sources use "Inuit" as an adjective for a singular noun, and dictionaries are OK with that. I came here once I saw "Inuit carver" changed to Inuk, and it felt completely foreign. I still cannot find a single use of "Inuk carver" in Google Books (there are 5 results in Scholar). Note that the search results need to be evaluated carefully, as Google search apparently sometimes (on it own) replaces "Inuk" with "Inuit" during search and always suggests such replacement. Викидим (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the question is not which is the most common usage (obviously Inuit) but whether "Inuk" is in some sense more correct and/or the preferred word of the people in question. On one hand I'm not a prescriptivist and inclined to call more correct whichever is actually used, but if "Inuk" is used more often by the Inuit when speaking English then on the whole I think we should defer to that. I think the most principled way to resolve that is to try gather a representative sample of Inuit organizations and see what they use, but that's not really something I have the time for at the moment. (I expect the majority of writing in the sample above to be by outsiders). Rusalkii (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

IMHO the choice of terms should follow the WP:RS and English dictionaries, not (inevitably few and having barely any true expertise in English language) Inuit organizations, but this page is not the forum for me to argue for that. My goal here was very limited: stop the mass changes that IMHO did not improve the articles. I think that we can agree that extra in-depth research and discussions are required in order to continue with the changes. The WP:BURDEN is indeed on the editors who want to make the change. I am in the status quo ante group and thus bowing out, too. Викидим (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You lost my sympathy with your statement that the Inuit Art Foundation has "barely any true expertise in English language." OP's edits were correct anyway. Yuchitown (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand your reaction. No one at the IAC seems to be an expert in English language. Unless you can point me to some members there who hold PhDs or significant publications in the area of English linguistics, this was simply a statement-of-fact. Experts in mathematics are mathematicians, experts in English - linguists that study English. Ethnicity/location/gender have nothing to do with expertise in either case, but the advanced degrees do count. Викидим (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Викидим, your argument has no merit.

The United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples own the rights to their own Indigenous intellectual property which includes cultural expression – this encompasses their rights to their own language. They don’t need a PhD in Linguistics or an A+ in English to speak their own language. Article 13 states that as Indigenous people (the Inuit people) control their own intellectual property, and have the rights to use and transmit their own language. Additionally, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of the International Labour Organization also guarantees their language rights, as does the Inuit Circumpolar Council, and they do indeed use Inuk as the singular. [11]

If you "believe" or "feel" that an academic pedigree is required for "credibility", this peep with a PhD and a distinguished professorship in Linguistics [12] at the University of Alaska states: "Inuit" is the plural of "inuk"".[13] I am certain a simple web search would reveal dozens if not hundreds of other "educated experts" to satisfy your random "requirement" that only folks with "advanced degrees" are correct.

As a related side note, the Inuktut language was the first Indigenous language in Canada that was included in “Google Translate” [14] – if you input the word “people” and “person”, the results are Inuit and Inuk, respectively. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague Netherzone, thank you! I have enjoyed reading your remark, it truly made my day. In order to move the discussion along, it might be useful to concentrate on the original issue that IMHO can be summarized as is it OK to keep (in the English Wikipedia articles) the expressions that use the word "Inuit" as a prepositive adjective for a singular noun?. I would posit that so far there is apparently no consensus on this issue, so IMHO the WP:mass changes should not continue. Викидим (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you switch your username to a common English spelling per your own argument?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA recommends to avoid "[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem". Викидим (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Викидим has apparently decided to turn this to a question of apparent consensus, I'm chiming in (and leaving aside the apparent condescending tone of the last message) to say I support the changes that have already been made and concur that they can continue, for the policy reasons already given by supporters. By my 'count' that's three named editors and one IP in favor (IP, plus Nethersoze, Yuchitown, and myself), one named editor on the fence but apparently leaning support (Rusalkii), and only one named editor against. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I support the changes if it's a voting matter now.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague Pinchme123: for me, this issue was always the question of consensus; I did not make any "turns". Please look at my very first reply on this thread: I strongly oppose the mass changes without a consensus here along the lines of WP:Mass editing. The discussion somehow evolved into a lecture about the roles of United Nations and International Labour Organization, and I have simply (very politely and without any condescension IMHO) asked to return back to the roots and focus. It worked, apparently: the issue of consensus was quickly solved (not in my favor, alas) so we can close this thread. Викидим (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this a few weeks ago but didn't see it as much of a concern. I've been using Inuk, Inuit (Linguistic recommendation from the Translation Bureau) and Inuit as a guide. This suggests that saying "Kiugak Ashoona was an Inuk artist" or "Kiugak Ashoona was an Inuit artist" are both acceptable. However, you can't say that "Cambridge Bay is an Inuk community". Although you would say "Kiugak Ashoona and Ohotaq Mikkigak are Inuuk" because there are two of them. And you shouldn't say that "Mary K. Okheena is an Inuk / Inuit artist" due to dialect. (In certain Inuktut dialects "inuit" and "inuk" are generic words for people and person and not capitalised.) Just for your amusement on a daily basis I see and hear Inuit, Inuits, Inuk, Inuks, and Eskimo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those links! Inuits or Inuit people are nails on chalkboard. Since Inuk and Inuit have been adopted as an English terms, I would definitely capitalize them. Yuchitown (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Inuktitut is the Prestige (sociolinguistics) dialect (which is why it's inuksuk and not inukhuk) so it's safer to capitalise. Besides Inuit people the other annoyance, and is the Inuit. This is harder to deal with because you have to write across Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland" and "The Inuit way of life in Nunavut is my life". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Formal move discussion on Pow-wow (folk medicine)

A formal move discussion (following the informal proposal) has been opened at Talk:Pow-wow (folk magic)#Requested move 17 March 2025 that may be of interest to this project. Netherzone (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on MOS:NATIONALITY for First Nations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians

Hello Turtle Island! Partly inspired by your WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY advice page, I have started a Request for Comment on MOS:NATIONALITY around including the names of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations in the first sentence of bio articles of First Nations Australians. I feel people in this WikiProject could offer a useful perspective on this discussion, especially with reference to the example for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians that is currently in the MOS.

Any comments and inputs would be very welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on MOS:NATIONALITY for First Nations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians. Thanks! Neegzistuoja (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

US law categories

Should Category:United States federal Indian policy be moved to Category:United States federal Native American policy to match Category:United States federal Native American legislation? Tule-hog (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it should probably be the other way around, since federal law largely refers to Native Americans as Indians. RE Special:Diff/1282840630: yes to your first question; no to your second because the parallel category to policy is Category:Native American law, which already has a "see also" to the policy category. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some re-sorting. (On the second question, I see now that Category:United States federal law is a subcat of Category:United States federal policy.) Tule-hog (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Could use some help with new Cowlitz Trail article

Hey everyone!

I began an article on Washington state's Cowlitz Trail and I am at a loss as to what type of infobox to use, if any. On perusal of some of the high quality articles focused on Native American byways and routes, most seem to not contain one at all. Those that do are usually a "protected area" or use a National Register of Historic Places infobox, neither which would apply to the Cowlitz path, unfortunately.

I have looked at the following that may fit but each seems to have some drawbacks, mostly not representative enough or not a solid enough fit:

1. Template:Infobox historical era
2. Template:Infobox archaeological culture
3. Template:Infobox landform
4. Template:Infobox trail
5. Template:Infobox historic site

The final three seem the best of the bunch but I'm leaning towards #5, the historic site infobox. What say the group?

If the project is unsure, I can reach out to the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking trails group to see if anyone there would have any thoughts, fully aware that the Cowlitz Trail is an historical landmark and not a recreational hiking trail.

Oh, and feel free to have at it on the new article...it's far from what it could be and I am fully aware that my writing is of great disservice to my English teachers back in the day. Seeing as I have no indigenous background, I defer to the good people of this project to expand the topic...good luck!

My thanks!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered Template:Infobox road? might be the best fit. PersusjCP (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't one of my faves! I thought about it but the road infobox seems to undercut the historical importance of the trail and with a lack of definitive measurements, terminus, the actual breadth of the system...I'm not sure I can make it work but I'll hold out and see what comes down the advice pipeline. But thanks for reaching out and good to see you active!OlympiaBuebird (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the Historic trails and roads in the United States article as well as the broader Historic roads and trails article. A lot of entries don't have an info box. But in addition to the five infoboxes listed above and the roads one mentioned by PersusjCP, I noticed several articles that used the Template:Infobox protected area. Netherzone (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Netherzone! Noticed the same and it's also a good fit, since parts of the Cowlitz Trail are protected and recognized. I'm going to do some sandbox experiments and I'll reach back out to the group once done to have the project weight in.

In the meantime, can we have someone at WP:IPNA with coding expertise create an infobox specifically for Native American articles? That'd be awesome!

Again, my thanks!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Since there's a distinction between federally-recognized tribes/governments and tribal groups (which may have several tribes attached to it--Think Duwamish people who have the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe, and the unrecognized Duwamish Tribe), you should use {infobox ethnic group} for the article about the 'people' themselves. There should be a template for federally-recognized tribes. I think i brought that up a while back. But I have no idea how to make it.PersusjCP (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I'll see what my limited coding skills can come up with. Pray for me.OlympiaBuebird (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We really do need a template for federally-recognized tribes, great idea @PersusjCP!

If @OlympiaBuebird can't figure out the coding, a request could be made for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates I suppose. Any thoughts on what the various fields in the template might be useful? Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's some off the top of my head. Official name, native name, alternative names, languages, constituent tribes/groups/ethnicities, demonym, some government things like type, positions, name of legislative body, etc., establishment dates, which treaties it is party to, official website, how much land it has in the reservation (if applicable), membership numbers, locator map, image, flag (although i think literally every tribal flag on wiki got deleted as they were copyvio)

If anyone could think of any others, that would be helpful. Templates like {infobox country}, {infobox settlement}, and I think there's one for First Nations band govts, could be helpful to look at @OlympiaBuebird @Netherzone PersusjCP (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you think former names of tribes would be useful for readers?

Re: Flags or logos seals, I'm wondering if it would be possible to upload reduced size and resolution versions of these within specifications for fair use. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says no flag icons, but flag files in the image perimeter is fine. Seems like there are still many tribal flags in infoboxes, and some have seals (like Chickasaw Nation). For additional perimeters, languages and websites would be good to include. The leader perimeter should have title as well. Yuchitown (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

For Alaska Native tribes, a perimeter for Alaska Native corporation would be helpful (just leave it blank for all the other tribes). Yuchitown (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

For former names, one longstanding alternative name could be useful (like in the caseof Pulikla Tribe of Yurok People). Otherwise it could probably just go into the name/etymology section. So that way you have common name, native name, official name, and alternative name in the infobox, and detailed info in the article. Maybe a couple alternative name perameters.

For flags/logos, I think it could probably be justified by fair use. But I'm not an expert on wikipedia copyvio. Could maybe also be solved by pictures of the flags irl?? Not sure if that would work.

And yes, a perimeter for Alaska Native corps would be great. Maybe also a perameter for Indian reservation or something, so they could be included since a lot of the same perameters would line up. PersusjCP (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I’d definitely prefer for alternative names to be in their own section instead of being in the infobox. The alternates become lengthy, unreadable lists. I’ve gradually been moving them out of the introductory sentences and into their own sections. Yuchitown (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these edits of Captivity narrative ok?

[15]. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I was uncomfortable about those edits, but, despite the fact that I created the "Captivity narratives" category, I am not very familiar with the scholarly literature. I do have the impression, however, that captivity narratives are regarded as being "morality" tales about being held captive by "others" of different religion, culture, etc. who are regarded by the captives' home community as inferior (i.e., "uncivilized", "heathen", etc.). My impression is that Captivity narratives are studied to learn how Euro-American culture used such narratives to reinforce society attitudes towards other cultures. I think those edits may have the effect of either destigmatising stereotypes about the captors, or whitewashing Euro-American predjudices. That said, I didn't have the time for a deep dive into the subject. Donald Albury 19:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at Talk:Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples

Probably could use some eyes PersusjCP (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Resighini_Rancheria requested move discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Resighini Rancheria#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to this project. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)