Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe

[edit] Bands, Reserves, Communities

As we slowly expand the articles in this section, should we have separate articles for bands and reservations and then any communities on those reservations. For instance, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is headquartered in Red Cliff, Wisconsin on the Red Cliff Indian Reservation. Should that be three articles or one? Currently, we have some articles written for bands under the name of the reservation and some under the name of the band. (Leo1410 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

That would clearly be three articles at the end. As a start, Red Cliff, Wisconsin would be a separate from the tribe, but as the tribal information develops, the tribal and reservational articles would develop to their own right. A good example of that is the White Earth Indian Reservation being the original tribe and reservation article but grew to a point they were then separated to the more correct reservation article and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe article. CJLippert 02:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree considering tribal members can live off reservation, some larger reservations have more than one "town" within them, etc. Plus, one could add very good infomation on the history of a reservation that doesn't really fit the article about the band and vice versa. As such, I would support leaving Curve Lake First Nation 35, Ontario and Curve Lake First Nation separate. (Leo1410 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

In the similar lines, we have several non-wikipedia sites that list all the historical Bands and communities. Often they are muddled together or duplicated due to different phonetic spellings. With the Algonquin article, consolidation has been taking place in listing these historical Bands and communities. We still need to do the same with Ojibwa. I don't know quite how we would do this, but we then would need so somehow connect the historical communities to the contemporary communities. Also, do we have a full listing of US non-Frederally Recognized Anishinaabe bands and Canadian non-Status Anishinaabe Bands anywhere yet? And how would we ensure that the non-independent Bands who are often lumped together with the non-Recognized/non-Status would not be? CJLippert 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I would like to move this list off of my user page. My contributions to wikipedia tend to come in bursts, and I don't want to create the appearance of any ownership over this information. Any suggestions for a new home? (Leo1410 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

I would suggest as a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.

Rmhermen 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Library of Congress Images

There are some good images at the Library of Congress website http://memory.loc.gov/ including photographs of a Cass Lake and a Sandy Lake chief and numerous others. Are we allowed to use those on wikipedia? (Leo1410 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Template

I created this template to help direct people to this page. Does anyone know if it will still work with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America system. I dont want them to think we're seceding from the big project. If it doesn't work, we'll have to redo it.

(Leo1410 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

I tested the new template, and everything is good. When it is placed in a talk page, it is still registered on the main project lists. Just place {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} on our talk pages, and you will see this:

(Leo1410 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I got our template to deposit articles into the categories Category:Anishinaabe articles with comments and Category:Unassessed Anishinaabe articles AND into the corresponding categories in the main Indigenous Peoples of North America project. The only thing I'm not sure of at this point is how it will handle articles that have already been assessed by the old template. Leo1410 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I temporarily put the tag on Talk:Anishinaabe, rated start on the other template. It still came up unassessed. We'll need to figure that out.

Leo1410 02:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started putting the template on all the articles without the other template or where the other template is unassessed. In these two cases, nothing changes on the main project lists. I've left it off any articles that have already been assessed until we can figure out how to properly transfer the assessments to the new template. Also, I've been leaving it off articles like petroform, wigwam, Leonard Peltier, etc. where singling it out as Anishinaabe wouldn't be appropriate. Leo1410 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the page is now set-up, but in order to make it a bit more navigable, could we add two additional tabs, one with all the bands/Nations/consortia and another tab with all the treaties/agreements/treaty-issue? On an XP system, it is not an issue but with Win98 system, the page is still way too long and and only loads up partially. By moving some of these to their own tabs, hopefully the each tab will load fully without a problem. CJLippert 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migration of images from hr.wikipedia to commons.wikipedia?

We currently have several images found at the Croatian local-Wikipedia not found at the Wikimedia commons. For the benefit of the the full Wikimedia umbrella, if these images can be proved either fair use or copyright free, we should migrate these images to commons.wikipedia. As a side note, we should also visit each of the non-English local-wikipedia articles to see if there are any other articles in en.wikipedia that should be included in this project. CJLippert 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking around and found a number of Anishinaabe articles (mostly stubs) on the Catalan wikipedia of all places that we don't have on the English wikipedia. I know enough Spanish to decipher most of the text and may try to translate some of them. Mostly a curiousity though.

Leo1410 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Algonquin Mythology link?

I'm moving this from Talk:Algonquin to here. CJLippert 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user with IP 80.229.29.19 left a "vandalized" comment I moved here, but the comment is a very good one. The anonymous user comments that:

• Algonquin mythology (*** WIKI EditoR - This link is confusing. ***)

Do we know what the intention of this link is? Shall we have this link instead redirect to Chippewa mythology? On that note, should the Chippewa mythology article be renamed as Anishinaabe mythology in order to be more inclusive? Suggestions? Ideas?

CJLippert 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say Anishinaabe mythology is the way to go. If Odawa mythology, Algonkin mythology, Ojibwe mythology, etc. all had their own articles, there would be an awful lot of overlap. However, differences in traditions should be pointed out where they exist. At the very least, Chippewa Mythology should be moved to Ojibwa Mythology for the sake of consistency and since many Northern Ojibwe dislike "Chippewa" while I've never met anyone who was strongly against "Ojibwa."

On a related note, I think a very good article could be written on Ojibwa totems or perhaps Anishinaabe totems would be more appropriate. We already have a good start in the Ojibwa article. I've been so busy lately, my wiki edits have been all drive-bys--no new articles. Hopefully soon. Leo1410 00:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Anishinaabe" works better, being more inclusive. I'll do what I can to help out with any such articles (and related, more specific ones), but you both know a great deal more than I do, so I don't know how helpful I'll actually able to be. Oh well. Take care, --Miskwito 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then here is the next question. Should the word "mythology" even be used at all? After all, though the Midewiwin communities are a definite minority, they are not extinct and among the Midew, this is not a mere mythology but a set of real belief system. CJLippert 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Though the word mythology was never supposed to mean "lies," it has seem to have taken on that meaning. For example, if you call Adam and Eve Christian mythology, you'll have some angry people on your hands. There is a certain negative connotation around words like myth, lore, legend, etc. Traditional Anishinaabe belief should be treated on the same level as any other religion, so I think there is a better term out there. Maybe Anishinaabe traditional religion? I think its important to differentiate what a key secret of the Midew and not intended to be known by outsiders (and really shouldn't be in Wikipedia), and what is widely known as the tradition of all Anishinaabe regardless of religious background. I think Wenaboozhoo, for instance could be included, and other stories, but the deep secrets (which I certainly don't know and don't intend to learn) should not be in here.

Leo1410 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not "religion" either. How about Anishinaabe traditional beliefs? Though some would argue that Midewiwin is a religion, folks around here would say it isn't but rather a life-style, which is exactly what all shamanistic animism practitioners say about their particular belief system and the life associated with that set of belief system. CJLippert 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslims say the same thing--Islam is a way of life not a religion.

Leo1410 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking around work, I fond this in the Mille Lacs Band's Civil Rights Code regarding Protection for cultural Values (1 MLBSA §13):

The Band Assembly for the Non-Removable Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians shall in all its actions seek to preserve and protect the official language of the Band as Ojibwe, the official religion of the Band as Me da win, and protect the Band's aboriginal rights and sovereignty, as well as the unwritten customs and traditions of the Band.

If the tribal law says that Midewiwin is a religion, I guess so can we. CJLippert 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, here is the next question. Do we want to for now merge the current Chippewa mythology article into the current Midewiwin article and as this expanded Midewiwin article become more robust, then to split the aricle up at that point in the future? CJLippert 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say because under this belief system, there's really nothing that isn't sacred. However, there are things that should be on wikipedia, and things that really shouldn't. One issue I thought of is that many Ojibweg who aren't part of the Midewiwin still tell stories about the Windigo, Wenaboozhoo, etc. So, putting the Midewiwin and the "mythology" together makes sense, but is problematic as well. I know I'm contridicting myself, but I think Anishinaabe traditional beliefs is the way to go after all. Then, explain how the beliefs are shaped by traditional religion, but exist throughout the culture. Leo1410 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the hard part, I think. There is the "traditional teaching" (aanike-gikinoo'amaadiwin) and then there is the "stories to point out traditional teachings" (aadizookaan) with a goal to cover the traditional customs (izhitwaawin) and are applicable to Midewiwin and non-Midewiwin peoples. If the article is to be renamed as Anishinaabe traditional beliefs, there will be a whole lot more that will need to go in there than what is there, since what is there currently is mostly characters often appearing in the aadizookaanan... and the characters are not the same thing as the belief system, but rather only a vehicle to teach about the belief system. CJLippert 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've come all the way around on this. I looked at Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Hindu mythology, and Buddhist mythology. Islamic mythology is a redirect. Talk:Christian mythology has some angry comments in it, but I think the fact that the article seems to be staying and is fairly good, is telling. The article at Religion and mythology does a nice job of laying out the theological definition of myth and how that compares to and is different from core religious principles. For that reason, I think Anishinaabe mythology is the way to go.

That said, there is a tendancy for Western readers of Western encyclopedias to view non-Western mythologies as superstition or cute fairy tales at best, and as devil worship at worst. So, if we do use the term mythology in the title, I think we should have one of the lead paragraphs establish that we are working off of the theological definition of the word, and that these are some of the core teachings of a thriving culture, not relics of an extinct people. Leo1410 16:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I did not know you were discussing something already thanks for sending me a message. I created the stub tonight called Algonquin mythology. It was also a requested article on the main mythology page. I also noticed a lot of unlinked stubs and references in mythology articles saying certain Gods or spirits were fropm "Algonquin mythology" so I just put them all together on one article, and looked up a few sources. I hope this has been helpful. Goldenrowley 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My next step (but I will pause for now) would be to remove the stubs of the 4 different articles on "wind Gods" and merge those four stubs to this article. I was trying to consolidate the Algonquin articles already online. Goldenrowley 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, then Goldenrowley, the question now is if the sources you speak of really Algonquin or a generalized term for Anishinaabe represented by the Algonquin, or is it really what Wikipedia calls Algonquian but what many sources call Algonquin? CJLippert 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The stub was designed to talk only of the Algonquin people as the stublets I located were only linked to that, however it can become more broad to the Algonquians. I would warn against gtting too much broader. If there is already a consensus please enlighten me. Goldenrowley 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably Algonquin would be too specific as it would be a large overlap with other Anishinaabeg and Algonquian would be too broad, though if character names in each of the Algonquian languages would be given, then it should still be fine. At the minimum, it should be moved up to the Anishinaabe level, but I think further discussions are needed with the full Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America would be needed if this would be moved to the even more broad Algonquian. CJLippert 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate ...Anishinaabe looks like a large distance and population to cover in one article, how much cultural variation are you talking about? How unified was the Anishunaabe religion & culture within the ethnic subgroups. There were no cars and telephones to keep in touch. Is there a reason that the word Algonquin was referenced in mythology articles. I hope I am asking good questions. Goldenrowley 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you'll be quite surprised! There are some variations but due to a very strong oral tradition and being trades people who travelled a lot, the Anishinaabe stories are pretty consistent across the large area. Moreover, if you think of Anishinaabeg being from Ottawa River westward to Interlake, the area is really not all that large. It has been only in the past 200 years the spread across the northern Great Plains have been aggressive. I agree with Leo that if these minor variations occur, then at that point noting these variation would be worthwhile. CJLippert 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I am convinced and on board with the Anishanaabe idea. Thanks Goldenrowley 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)