Talk:Lakota language

Hókahé

I have deleted the following statement from the "Phrases" section:

"Hokahe!" is a phrase used by traditional Lakota people during battle. It means "let's go". Crazy Horse was known to use it to mean "charge!" It can be contracted to just "ho!". According to a Lakota Holy Man, Eagle Voice, as recounted by Nebraska poet John Neihardt, it is literally translated as "Hold fast. There is more!"

The New Lakota Dictionary gives two senses under the entry hókahé: 1) Welcome! exclamation for greeting a visitor; 2) exclamation for the start of a race or a joint effort. It seems to me that the dictionary is a more reliable source than that given in the hokahe paragraph (Bobby Bridger). If it was up to me I would delete the whole Phrases section unless it contains a list of phrases. Thiyopa (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of the phrases section.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sure I read somewhere years ago that shouting Hókahé meant 'Its a good day to die' during a battle. Is there any basis for this or is it pure 'Hollywood'? Thanks 2winjustonce (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Orthography and Alphabet

The word orthography is defined as "A set of conventions for representing language in a written form" (O'Grady et al. 2001). Since the alphabet is the main convention used for writing Lakhota (others include things like writing from left to right, using punctuation, etc.), I think that Alphabet should be a sub-section of Orthography, rather than a section of Sound system with equal prominence. Cnilep (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed. Thiyopa (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This pair of additions notes that the standard orthography is not accepted by all speakers, a point that I think bears mention. This subsequent edit helpfully adds a source, but the source is the preface to a work on Dakota history and legend. The preface mentions that some of the author's sources differ from what she calls "the 'accepted' spelling" and "the 'correct' spelling" (scare-quotes in original). Can we find a more apropos third-party source? Cnilep (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no information whatsoever about the source of the orthography for Lakota? The general history is, afaik, not really in dispute, text quoted from ( although I don't know if this counts as a qualified source): (I've replaced their use of Sioux with Lakota) "The first alphabet for Lakota, known as Riggs, was devised by the missionaries Samuel and Gideon Pond, Stephen Return Riggs and Dr Thomas S. Williamson in 1834. They based their spelling system on the Santee dialect (Dakota) and used it to translate biblical texts into that dialect. The Dakota translation of the bible was well known and used among the Dakota and Lakota. A revised version of this system was used in Riggs' Dakota Grammar, published in 1852, and in his Dakota-English dictionary, published in 1890. Since then a number of other Lakota and Dakota spelling systems have been devised." It feels like the Riggs impact on the original Orthography of Lakota has been missed almost deliberately, it's such a glaring omission. Styopa (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Styopa: See: Sioux_language#Writing_systems. Also, this is the Lakota language article, not the Dakota language article. You are referring to a Dakota dictionary. oncamera 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Assessment

I downgraded the article from B to C because of insufficient sourcing. By that I mean that the number of inline citations is insufficient, generally there should be at least one citation per section/long paragraph to merit B-class. Also the better part of the citations are to Rood and Taylors rather basic sketch in HNIA - I am sure there are more comprehensive sources (including journal articles) that could benefit the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Immersion programs?

Considering that the Lakota language is endangered (average speaker age is 65), I think it would be helpful to mention any immersion programs (be they in schools, colleges or universities) that have been implemented to teach Lakota and Sioux youth their ancestral language so that it does not become lost. Ericster08 (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IPA versus Lakota Orthography

I recently rolled back a large series of edits that changed the orthography on this page from IPA to Standard Lakota Orthography. WP:MOSIPA calls for transcription using broad IPA, though I think Lakota words can be written in the SLO if that is the consensus among editors. (Even then, there should not be SLO renderings for example within IPA templates, though.)

In rolling back the edits I appear to have removed some valuable additions. I'm afraid I don't have time just now to evaluate each of the changes and figure out which ones were useful (I know, I know, I probably shouldn't have edited if I didn't have time to do a proper job). Unfortunately the IP editor who made those changes doesn't have a talk page. I invite others to evaluate the changes, and will try to get back to it in a week or so. Cnilep (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(new user in conversation) I apologize for the Orthographical changes, I had not read the WP:MOSIPA article and did not realize fully what I was doing. Sorry for the hassle it created. I re-added the Ablaut section which was accidentally erased. I did not add anything more, just a repost of the existing Ablaut changes. mikekat93 (talk) 10:22, October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing my screw-up, and welcome! Your contributions here are most welcome. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it an oversight that the ejective fricatives are not listed in the alphabet table? — kwami (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orthography again

This edit seems not quite appropriate to me. At least, it seems to go beyond what is claimed in the source it cites. Palmer suggests that the texts she collected use a variety of spelling conventions, including many that differ from what she calls "the 'correct' spelling". That is, Palmer puts "correct" in scare quotes. She does not say that this spelling is phonetic (all ways of writing Lakota that I have seen are at least phonographic in principle, meaning they attempt to represent the pronunciation of words), and although one might infer from her scare quotes that Palmer regards the variants as correct, she does not state so explicitly, nor does she claim that anyone else says so.

Furthermore, as I noted above, Palmer's book is not principally interested in the Lakota language but in the history recorded in Lakota/Dakota/Nakoda stories and myths. It is therefore not a very good source for assertions about orthography.

I am of the opinion that Maunus's 22 December version was good, and that Uyvsdi's 23 December edits are not a step forward and may actually introduce some errors or potential misunderstanding. Cnilep (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It was User:Windhorsewoman who made the statement that many Native Lakota speakers don't embrace the formal orthography. I just found a published source that backed up her idea - and yes, the source does state that different spellings are regarded as correct. I'll look for more sources if you insist. Lakota is a living language and if some native speakers does embrace certain orthographies, I have no problem with that or expressing that sentiment. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Page two of Palmer's introduction reads (in relevant part),

If the author quoted used a phonetic spelling that differed from the "accepted" spelling, then that spelling is preserved. If it is too different from the original, then the "correct" spelling or the English translation is embedded parenthetically in the text. (Palmer 2008, 2)

As I read it, Palmer states explicitly that many spellings exist, but only implies that she considers many variants correct. Other inferences are also possible. On the other hand, I was mistaken when I said she doesn't call them phonetic; she does. Again, though, this is her description of the texts she is quoting, not a general description of the state of Lakota orthography. Cnilep (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the passage I was citing, same page: "Historically most words in the written language have been spelled phonetically, which tends to be entirely dependent on the 'ear' of the listener. As a result, the read of historical texts finds that the Two-face Woman, Anog Ite (the g is pronounced as a soft 'k') of Walker's books is spelled Anukite elsewhere, and neither spelling can be considered incorrect. ...no one system has taken precedence over another, and there can be any number of written transcriptions of a single sound." Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ejective fricatives?

This article and several others on Wikipedia claim that Lakota has ejective fricatives. I have just now trawled the linguistic literature and have nowhere seen any testaments to this claim. I even personally asked a couple of linguists who have worked on the language and they indicated that they had never encountered ejective fricatives in the language. Since these sounds are remarkably rare cross-linguistically, this article needs an explicit citation for them and should also give some example vocabulary including them.

There is some confusion in the linguistic literature regarding the difference between glottalized and ejective sounds, particularly in North Americanist work where the phonetic distinction was historically either ignored or not made clear. It may be that an enthusiastic contributor has misinterpreted some transcriptions that actually describe glottalized fricatives, i.e. sounds like [ʔs] or [sʔ], which are phonetically distinct from [sʼ] and use an entirely different airstream mechanism (pulmonic egressive rather than glottalic egressive). Or possibly someone has misinterpreted the term “glottalized” as equivalent to “ejective”, whereas these two terms are distinct today. In any case, if no linguistic literature can be brought to bear on this issue, then I must insist that the claims in this article for Lakota’s use of ejective fricatives be removed. — 74.61.126.106 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert in phonetics, but I note that Rood and Taylor (1996) write, "the glottalized stops of Lakhota are ejectives". If this is a confusion, it would seem to be one represented explicitly in the source material, not misunderstood from phonetic transcriptions. (Almost by definition, scholars writing about Lakota are North Americanists.)

At the same time, though, I need to point out that Rood and Taylor refer only to "glottalized stops" or "ejective stops" (both labels for the set they transcribe as pˀ, tˀ, čˀ and kˀ) and not to ejective fricatives. These stop constants are made by closing the glottis and another point of articulation (labial, dental, etc.), then releasing both. I think that this is what 74.61.126.106 calls "glottalized", as opposed to "glottalic egressive". Cnilep (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing Sources

One should urgently give sources of what is claimed in the different sections. It is e.g. not verifiable if there are really 4 articles in Lakhota, since no source is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrafao (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 October 2012

Format of references

This article currently has a 'Notes' section, which includes a number of citations referencing the content. It also includes a 'References' section, which lists three more sources. The 'Further reading' section lists more publications that are not directly cited in the article.

This should be cleaned up, so that either the footnotes give the full reference (as is the case for most of them now) or the footnotes point to sources that are listed in a separate References section (as I think is the case only for Jessica Palmer's book). Templates such as {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} are available to help with this.

I usually prefer the simpler, footnotes-only style, but many good articles use citation footnotes plus a list of references; see for example Greenlandic language. In contrast, International Phonetic Alphabet uses what I'm calling "footnotes only"; its "Notes" section is for explanatory asides.

Before I proceed with any changes, though, I want to find out if other editors have a preference for one-part ("footnotes only") or two-part (footnotes plus reference list) citations. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Voiceless Aspirates

The text refers to voiceless aspirated plosives, but they're not represented in the consonant chart. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The chart was labeled "unaspirated", but that word had an internal link to voiceless consonant. I suspect that someone intended to label it as "voiceless" but made a small mistake. Cnilep (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That does not solve the problem, though. Compare Dakota language#Consonants, which does list aspirated stops – my understanding is that the Dakotan languages all have them.

Another problem is that the vowel chart does not use IPA but only the orthographical convention with ‹ŋ›, which is misleading in this context. In Dakota language#Vowels, IPA is not even used in the running text, despite the slashes indicating phonemic notation (which is usually IPA-based, after all). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha, here's the explanation for both issues: Back in 2012, an IP vandalised the article at various places. I hate, hate, hate it when I can't simply hit undo anymore because the watchers were too &"!$/@%§ to undo the vandalism already back when it happened. So, please make up for your inattention now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Because none of you lazy &"!$/@%§s could be arsed, I just did it myself, as well as I could. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are so displeased, I believe Wikipedia will refund your subscription fee. Thank you for bowdlerizing the abuse. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How magnanimous of you to not even simply thank me for my edit (I'd preferred if somebody who actually knows something about Lakota had performed the cleanup, just to avoid introducing additional errors, you know) and instead make a sarcastic retort. Apparently hitting the "thank you" button is more work than thinking up and typing down a reply. I expect a petty non-apology apology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

JFTR: I'm mad as hell that major vandalism is not only not reverted soon by the regular watchers of an article on Wikipedia, but even left alone indefinitely even when pointed out with a handy diff-link, and I think my annoyance is quite justified, or at least understandable. (For reasons I don't want to go into here, I can't edit Wikipedia as swiftly and easily as others, and as pointed out, I'm not a connoisseur, that's why I didn't immediately clean the issue up myself.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lakota language. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518165344/http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/47231 to http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/47231

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ŋ 'approximate[s] IPA value'?

@Thnidu: and others: <ŋ> was added to the list of "consonants [that] approximate their IPA values". But I thought <ŋ> is used to mark nasalization, not as a consonant as such. For example <kaŋsu'> is pronounced [kãsuʔ], not [kaŋsuʔ]. Am I mistaken? Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Primitive appearances in popular culture

These appearances sometimes make the Lakota sound slow and monotonic (kind of "Tarzan-speak"), or like each sentence has a legendary poetical wisdom. 192.116.89.165 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Names translation

The answer might be in the article, but tl;dr: Why do names are translated? It is unusual.

Non of you call the Biblical Deborah "a bee", right? So why it is different with Tkhashungke Witko? 192.116.89.165 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Their Lakota/Dakota names were commonly translated into English when they were alive and creating the history we learn about now, but sometimes the common English translation they are known by is actually incorrect, so it's informative to include a better translation without changing the common English name they are known by. See Young Man Afraid of His Horses as an example. oncamera 01:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to other languages

User:Oncamera has reverted my edits from

"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two Siouan languages (Dakota and Nakota)"

to

"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two languages (such as Dakota language)"

and then

"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language"

The basis for these reverts has been that Lakota is not mutually intelligible with Nakota. "The Nakota language page literally explains in detail how the languages are not understood by D/Lakota people.)"

Okay, the Nakota page does indeed assert that the language spoken by the Assiniboine is not mutually intelligible. Whether this language should be called "Nakota" has been debated, historically, but seems correct. However, the statement User:Oncamera has arrived at - "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language" - does not make sense. If Lakota is one of three dialects of Dakota, then what are the other two dialects? Dakota_language#Dialects says Dakota has only two dialects, Eastern and Western. Western Dakota was known as Nakota, erroneously, and was somewhat mutually intelligible with Lakota, which is described as a separate language.

Basically, "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the two dialects of the Dakota language, especially Western Dakota (which was previously known as Nakota. Nakota is a related language but is not mutually intelligible." Agreed?

Ewen (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You asked, "If Lakota is one of three dialects of Dakota, then what are the other two dialects?" Answer: Lakota, Western Dakota and Eastern Dakota are the three dialects of the Sioux language which the article states in the opening lead: "Though generally taught and considered by speakers as a separate language, Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language, and is considered by most linguists as one of the three major varieties of the Sioux language."

Referring to Western Dakota as "previously known as Nakota" is perpetuating the error that white linguists started as cited on the Nakota page. Again, Western Dakota is not Nakota, the language of the Assiniboine. This article focuses on the Lakota language and doesn't need to go into excessive detail about the dialects of Dakota. It also does not need to include the language spoken by the Assiniboine in the lead since it's not one of three dialects of the Sioux language.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 10:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but with respect, User:Oncamera, you're not being consistent here. According to the respective WP aritcles, Dakota language has two dialects. Sioux language "has three major regional varieties" and includes Lakota as well and Western and Eastern Dakota. Swapping between the descriptions Dakota language and Sioux language is not helpful or accurate.

As for the erroneous use of Nakota to refer to Western Dakota, it is a fact that Western Dakota was previously known as Nakota. It was wrong to do that, but it's still a fact that this was how it was refered to.

Could we try "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the two dialects of the Dakota language, especially Western Dakota." or "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two varieties of the Sioux language, especially Western Dakota." ?

Ewen (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Dakota and Lakota people are known as the Sioux and they speak the Sioux language, which has three varieties known as Lakota, Western and Eastern Dakota. I am not actually swapping between the usage of Dakota language and Sioux language, it's important to include them both to clarify that Lakota is one of the varieties of the Sioux language and the Dakota dialects being considered the other two. Anyway, your latest revision is fine with me. I would suggest wikilinking Western Dakota to Dakota language#Comparison of the dialects so interested folks can learn more about what that means.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made the amendments. It looks okay to me and I hope it does to you too. Cheers! Ewen (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The Lakota Language Consortium, the publishers of the New Lakota Dictionary, has been writing sections in this article about the orthography that heavily sways an unbalanced view in the favor of their work and downplays the work of other institutions. The sources are primary sources, linked only to their website and published materials.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is mere propaganda- IyaCrusher (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Which accounts and/or IPs are the LLC using? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with OnCamera[1] that we should keep the substance of this edit[2], but just reword it so it's in neutral, encyclopedic language (per the rules we all have to work with here on WP). Do we have any publication data to cite for Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council Resolution No. 2012-343? As I go through this, I'm seeing claims as to the importance and significance of the LLC and their "New Lakota Dictionary" that are solely sourced to... the work published by the LLC. This is not usable sourcing and can and should be cut. It's astroturfing. It is not "vandalism" to remove it. The only issue here is that what is included by third party, non-COI editors needs to be written with an encyclopedic tone and sourced. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the additions and reverts, I'm seeing a lot of citespam type edits on Sioux language by Thiyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starting with:[3], and proceeding with edits like these 23[4] until that article is also heavily-weighted with LLC content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sent this source to Corbie http://www.sonjajohn.net/OralityOverwritten_PowerRelationsInTextualization_SonjaJohn.pdf it nicely renders LLC as a useless as it notes multiple resolutions from Rosebud as well as other helpful content. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

For more info on the roots of the problem with groups like the LLC, and tying it into the larger issues of translation in general, check out this video. Recommendations for further reading in academic sources, and some detailed comparison of Albert White Hat's, vs LLC's (and Christian missionary's), conflicting translations of Lakota. Reg is a well-known language teacher in the community who has been standing up to the LLC. I think this is a really good commentary on the role of cultural lens in translation/linguistic work, and covers it well in a concise form, from a Lakota and Dakota perspective. I think it would be an excellent addition as an external link: Systemic racism in linguistics. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what the Lakota Language Consortium is, nor do I have any links whatsoever with it, as is clearly shown by the long argument I had a few years ago with Thiyopa (who is probably an exponent or supporter of it) in the talk page of the article Sioux Language

I don't know whether the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council (or others) have the authority to ban anyone “from Lakota territory”, as user:CorbieVreccan wrote in their latest edit on the article Dakota language, but it certainly doesn't have the power to decide which sources should be considered reliable on Wikipedia, and which should not. On the other hand, according to Tasha R. Hauff, the Standing Rock Indian Tribe's attitude seems to have been quite different having they collaborated with the LCC in the multi-year efforts "which have formed the beginning of Standing Rock's recent, and growing, Indigenous language revitalization movement" ("Beyond Numbers, Colors, and Animals: Strengthening Lakota/Dakota Teaching on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation", in Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Spring 2020), pp. 5-25 (21 pages). Published By: University of Minnesota Press).

The LCC has not authored either the New Lakota dictionary nor the Lakota Grammar Handbook: these works were authored by a Czech scholar named Jan Ullrich, who lived in the Lakota and Dakota reservations for many years carrying on enormous work, the value of which I am not able to judge. However, the only two reviews I found online about his Grammar Handbook (which he wrote along with Native Black Bear, B. Jr) sound pretty good (Bruce Ingham, SOAS University of London, in Language Documentation and Conservation, Vol. 12 (2018), pp. 194–203; David V. Kaufman, in International Journal of American Linguistics, Volume 85, Number 4, October 2019, pages 569–571). I do believe that he would deserve to be confuted through different reliable sources and not by being treated like a vandal and without even being named.

Of course, I fully agree that any changes that are biased in favour of the LCC and/or against others should be immediately removed.--Jeanambr (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeanambr Jan Ullrich is directly involved with LLC. He's currently on their board of directors. Rosebud can ban anyone from their territory that they would like. ETA- Standing Rock is no longer using LLC's content https://lakotalanguagereclamationproject.com/blog Indigenous girl (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jeanambr: Jan Ullrich is one of the two co-founders and directors of the LLC. He published the work he's adding and commenting on, and he's the one posting negative commentary and misinformation about the Lakota Elders and language workers whose work was taken for the LLC's materials. Read the sources from actual Lakota and Dakota people. He has spammed the 'pedia with COI self-promotion, and removed work by Natives. His disruption is now being removed. I assume he's been active on the other wikis, including the Euro ones where you've imported content from to en-wiki. Check the histories there for the multiple accounts.

I also have to ask you, do you have any connection to, or involvement with, The Lakota Language Consortium, or The Language Conservancy? You say you don't know what the LLC is, but you've been writing about it on WP. Such as in this edit,[5] where you added: "Ullrich, Jan, New Lakota Dictionary : Lakhótiyapi-English / English-Lakhótiyapi & Incorporating the Dakota Dialects of Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai, Bloomington, Lakota Language Consortium, 2008 (ISBN 0-9761082-9-1)" [bolding added]- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I own a copy of the New Lakota Dictionary (which I bought some years ago after my long argument with Thiyopa), and all times I quoted it , I reported of course the name of the publisher; yet, as usually, I don't know almost anything else about it. Contrary to what one is supposed to do on Wikipedia, you don't report any sources for what you say, while I persist in thinking that that would be the correct way to refute the hoaxes allegedly contained in Ullrich's books.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Page up and read this discussion again more carefully, or read it for the first time. You also have not answered whether or not you have a connection to the umbrella group, The Language Conservancy. Read the links that have been posted, notably the pdf of the book that has been added to the article as a source. There are other accounts online of what the LLC has been doing in LDN communities, as well. This has been happening on multiple articles, with discussions in multiple places. Read the policies on users adding citations to their own, self-published work to cite the importance of their own work. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. You will have to do the work to read the policies, discussions, articles, sources, and reports to get up to speed. No one else can do it for you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I fully disagree, but, after a pause for reflection of a couple of days, I have decided not to add anything else to this discussion and to refrain from making further edits in the articles of the English Wikipedia regarding Native Americans. I would just like to express my deep disappointment at the harsh and inquisitorial way user:CorbieVreccan, an administrator, addressed me, certainly not assuming the slightest good faith on my part. I was particularly disturbed by his repeated insinuations that I was somehow linked to I don't know what groups or associations involved in controversy over Indian life. Of course, he did not present (nor will he present) evidence of this, because such alleged links do not exist, apart from a tiny financial contribution that I sent a decade ago to Tusweca Tiospaye to support the annual "Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Language Summit". I don't know if Tusweca Tiospaye is one of the groups covered by The Language Conservancy, but I haven't had any further contact with them since then, and, anyway, I wonder what right CorbieVreccan has to poke his nose into the private sphere of others.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Public orgs are not "the private sphere". What you post on Wikipedia is not in "the private sphere". When someone who is involved in one of those orgs is editing to promote the org's interests - the way multiple, connected accounts have done on these articles - it is a violation of WP:COI policies. All Wikipedians are required to follow these rules. Administrators are tasked with enforcing these rules. We assume good faith unless there are reasons to question. It has nothing to do with you personally. If you are not one of the people in the group in question, we don't know you. This is about protecting the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As I noted on their user talk, new account Malakota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first blanked content critical of the LLC. Twice. The recent edits have a definite spin, that reads very promotional in favor of the LLC... even implying the use of LLC materials when the cited source doesn't mention them at all. I am seeing a continuation of the pattern. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Malakota has conflict of interest in their involvement with LLC and should not be editing this article. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No I do not have a conflict of interest at all. I work full time for a school that does not even use any official orthography but allows teachers to use what they prefer. I added information from sources and am being accused of saying that Red Cloud uses the same orthography as LLC when they don’t stare that. They don’t identify it as LLC’s orthography, but it just takes a simple comparison of their contents to see it’s the same! Red Cloud uses their own curriculum which they created as opposed to the LLC’s, but both institutions use the Standard (Suggested) Lakota Orthography. Other institutions have been working on creating their own curriculum as well and still using the orthography.

If it must be clarified, I work for Little Wound School. Again, we don’t have an official orthography and teachers are encouraged to use what they find useful. Malakota (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care which school you may be involved with. I know you are twice mentioned in at least one teacher's manual published by LLC. I'm not going to mention which one or the specific pages because it is not my wish to dox you. Not only is it against policy, it's also unethical to me personally. Indigenous girl (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I assure you I have never been mentioned in any Teacher's Manual. I have never contributed to any LLC textbooks whatsoever. In fact, most of their materials were published before I had even started teaching Lakota. You must have me confused with someone else. Malakota (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)