Talk:Atakapa

United States: Louisiana / Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

On 17 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Atakapa-Ishak. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Zydeco

I think the Atakapa contributed heavily to the modern foundation of Zydeco music, I'll put this information in when I confirm it.--68.14.108.243 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good discussion of this in a book that should be cited in this article, viz., Barnes & Breunlin's Le Kèr Creole: Creole Compositions and Stories from Louisiana. New Orleans: University of New Orleans Press, 2019. ISBN 9781608011728. Hoktiwe (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attacapa Survival

Gatschet and Swanton documented people in Southeastern Texas and Southwestern Louisiana in the 1880s through the first decade or so of the twentieth century who could speak the Atakapa language. So is it appropriate to say that they were "decimated" in the 1850s?

Correct. They weren't decimated in the 1850s. There is no citation to that either. Apparently, their descendants still exist. An entire article in the The Times of Acadiana (July 25, 2007 Vol 27 No 48) approaches this topic in depth and this is why the tribe is still fighting for recognition. Falcanary 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Documenting some survivors doesn't imply they were numerous, and fighting for recognition (and now rather than earlier) suggests the opposite, that they were decimated into insignificance or at least obscurity. It doesn't necessarily mean that the article is correct, but those two arguments alone are poor. -LlywelynII (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently at least three organized groups of Ishak, which suggests they still exist. Either way, the tone of this article violates the neutrality of Wikipedia by attempting to deny their claim of existence. Hoktiwe (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for further improvement

Interesting link which might be useful for future expansion [1]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabeza de Vaca

Article is sourced but contradicts TSHA Handbook of Texas article, which suggests it was the Karankawa on Galveston Island who succored and enslaved the Spaniard. I'm thinking the HoT is better researched, documented, and sourced here, but perhaps they are wrong: any more sources to corroborate that it was the Attacapa? -LlywelynII (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... well, the TSHA article on Attacapas contradicts the one on Karankawas: I guess it's just unclear who the "Han" where (although presumably not Chinese) and academic partisans are backing whomever they're studying. (Too cynical?) Regardless, article does say the Attacapans were down to 9 people by 1908. -LlywelynII (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Atakapa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title Should Be "Ishak"

Given that the tribe's internal name is Ishak, it seems that should be the title of the article. There is at least one article online that lists it that way, and it is from the 64 Parishes Encyclopedia, published by the Louisiana Endowment for the humanities. I've put a link to it in the links section. Hoktiwe (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct, and various issues

Given that there are multiple organized groups, there is no need to have the tribe listed as extinct. I note also that almost all references in the article are rather dated, regardless of topic. There have been several more recent academic publications about the group in university press books and peer-reviewed journals that are missing. There is no discussion of complications of African-Native American identity, no references to the vast literature on that topic, no citations of the many recent sources about the language, and even some of the images are mislabeled. In short, this article has multiple issues.

Hoktiwe (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, countless groups identify as being descendants of historic tribes. The Atakapa Ishak Nation has its own page. If other contemporary Atakapa heritage groups are notable, we can make articles for them as well. Native American tribe involved political power, continuity, and validation of claims by others outside the group itself. There is discussion of African-Native American identity at Black Indians in the United States. A common misconception that having African ancestry bars groups from federal recognition; however, Shinnecock, the two Wampanoag tribes, Pequot, Moncan, Narragansett, Muscogee, Seminole, and many more recognized tribes have substantial African ancestry. Yuchitown (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Thank you for your response, @Yuchitown. Unrecognized, though, does not mean extinct.

The issue of African ancestry and recognition in Louisiana is a significant one, and it led to paper genocide of Louisiana tribes through deliberate ethnic misclassification. There is a large literature on this. It is mentioned in many academic writings on Louisiana Natives. Among those are Elizabeth Ellis' The Great Power of Small Nations ISBN 9781512823097

and Brian Klopotek's Recognition Odysseys ISBN 978-0-8223-4984-6. There is one federal tribe in Louisiana that has significant numbers of African Americans, viz., the Tunica-Biloxi. The Chitimacha got recognition in part by kicking African Americans out of the tribe. An article about research regarding this was published in Indian Country Today: https://ictnews.org/archive/are-louisiana-tribes-turning-a-blind-eye-to-racism While African ancestry does not explicitly bar tribes from recognition, it is an obstacle, and there is a peer-reviewed literature about that regarding Louisiana.

Importantly, though, it is an issue with the Ishak, and rather than listing them as "extinct," unrecognized is a more neutral designation suitable for Wikipedia. Hoktiwe (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Atakapa Ishak Nation is the unrecognized tribe and discussions about that organization should take place on its article's talk page. Conflating Atakapa Ishak Nation and Atakapa would be original research and pushing a point of view. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A Native American tribe is a collective political entity; a tribe can become extinct (perhaps there is a better term) while since potentially having individual living descendants. The DOI office of acknowledgment does not recognize the continuity of any Atakapa tribes, neither do the states of Louisiana or Texas. Nor do intertribal organizations such as the National Congress of the American Indians (which includes innumerable state-recognized tribes) or the Native American Rights Fund. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments, @Yuchitown.

As you mention, perhaps there should be a better term than extinct. If there are Ishak people, then they are not extinct. They might be extinct as a political entity. A group of people do not have to be a political entity as a tribe to exist. African Americans exist. There is a population of African Americans. The fact that African Americans are not a political entity such as a tribe in no way means they do not exist.

The Ishak as a people can exist without being a tribe, the same way as any other ethnic group. As such, perhaps the Ishak should be listed as "unclear" rather than "extinct." To say the Ishak are extinct when there are many people claiming to be the Ishak across multiple organized groups is itself to make an original judgement, and I do not here wish to make that judgement either way. Neutrality is the aim.

I think the interests of neutrality are best met by changing from "extinct" to a more neutral term.

With best wishes, Hoktiwe (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuchitown, I must also mention that not all people who identify as Ishak are part of the Atakapa Ishak Nation. Some are in other groups, or unaffiliated at all. Some of the groups are mentioned in this encyclopedia article from the 64 Parishes Encyclopedia from the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities: https://64parishes.org/entry/ishak-indigenous-people Hoktiwe (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move

User:MiniYaCh made an undiscussed move from the stable, wp:commonname of Atakapa to Atakapa-Ishak. This should have been proposed and discussed since its not a technical move. The Atakapa Ishak Nation has its own separate article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Evidence provided by Yuchitown supports the position that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME. This is further supported by the notion that despite any past possibly derogatory connotations, the "communities now use and identify with the term", as indicated by the nominator. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atakapa → Atakapa-Ishak – The people are referred to as the Atakapa, the Ishak, and the Atakapa-Ishak. Referring to them as simply Atakapa or Ishak doesn't make since in that context. As well, they are referred to Atakapa-Ishak by media sources (https://www.texasobserver.org/mapping-indigenous-communities-of-texas-atakapa-ishak/, https://64parishes.org/keyword/atakapa-ishak-nation) and by the major tribal organization (https://www.atakapa-ishaknationofswla.org/); MiniYaChi (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). MiniYaChi (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes): "In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used. In many cases, the most concise title will be a plural demonym...." It is not a practice to combine an exonym and autonym together. This is an article for the Atapaka ethnic group. Typically the denomyn is used; There is an article for the Atakapa Ishak Nation, so we don't want to generate confusion. Atakapa is overwhelmingly the more common English-language term for the ethnic group.

Google Scholar:

Jstor:

"Atapaka" generates 461 results
"Atakapa-Ishak" generates 9 results, several of which refer specifically to the Atakapa Ishak Nation.

"Ishak" alone generates primarily results from authors with the Arabic surname. Yuchitown (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Please read Wikipedia:Autonym: "The names an ethnic group or Indigenous government self-identifies should be considered." Despite it not being general practice to combine an exonym and an autonym together, it is practice within this group. The Atakapa Ishak Nation Is not the only group referring to themselves in this way. Atakapa-Ishak is also used by the community at Grand Bayou Indian Village.[2] Also, Wikipedia conflates Indigenous peoples and the governments which represent them frequently. See the usage of governmental flags on pages for Chickasaw, Houma, Chitimacha peoples within a top infobox to name a few examples. People are not confused by this practice. In addition, the exonym "Atakapa" is a Choctaw term translating to "man eater", referring to someone who would take another into slavery.[3] Although communities now use and identify with the term "Atakapa", it is not appropriate to use the term exclusively, especially when the term is not used exclusively. 225Nerd (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested name includes "Atakapa", so clearly even contemporary groups don't have a problem with it. The Chickasaws and Chitimachas each only have one government, which is why the lines are more blurred with those articles; however, Chickasaw Nation has since been created, so that has more of the government information. Yuchitown (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that User:MiniYaChi changed their username to User:225Nerd diff, so this "support" vote comes from the same editor who proposed the move. 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is the case. I'm sorry if this has caused any confusion. It was not my intention to appear as two separate people. 225Nerd (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors don't vote in move discussions that they initiated. Yuchitown (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. Thank you for letting me know. 225Nerd (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose When I approached this move request I wanted to get a feel for the article because it really is about how best to present this ethnic group of Indigenous people to our readers. I wanted to go into it with an open mind before reading even what the request was to move the title to. I am glad I did. This requested move is wrong on so many levels. It would violate naming convention guidelines. It has not been demonstrated how changing this name would improve the encyclopedia. We have articles on the Cherokee and the various recognized and unrecognized tribes and heritage groups which claim descendance. What is used by a heritage group and a single village, while holding some credence, does not present a preponderance of evidence enough to out weigh decades and centuries of expert academic and anthropological studies. Until we see some definitive evidence that this ethnic group was continuously referred to by the requested name change from contact into modern times I think it best to remain the common name it currently has. --ARose Wolf 11:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.