Question

I'm not sure if this question was ever answered in past discussions...  How is the American Indian/Native American Project distinguishing between the use of the Last Name field for a person such as Melissa Ojibway - who is a real person whose surname is actually Ojibway - and a profile where the tribe was inserted in place of a surname in order to categorize profiles of people who have no surname.  Was a standard created for noting the insertion of a tribe instead of a surname?  Another question - how was it decided if the project was to use Ojibwe or Ojibway or Anishinaabe or Chippewa?

Comments

Can you edit your post and add the tag native_americans? It will appear with the name of the tribes you have tagged. The native_americans tag will notify the project that you have asked the question. They would be the most familiar with the naming conventions.

---

I added a tag.  Also nameS of the tribe.

---

That will help get their attention, but can you edit it? It needs to be exactly native_americans even the s on the end. That way it matches the tag they follow. 

Answer 1

This is the statement from the Native Americans project page: 

"Name Fields Guidelines

WikiTree's underlying technology requires an entry in the "Last Name at Birth" field. It is the policy of WikiTree's Native Americans project to use this field to record the tribe or nation name for those individuals born before the introduction of surnames. For example, Pocahontas was a member of the Powhatan people. Her profile is Powhatan-3."

It's up to the person creating the profile to determine what tribe name should be used for the person.  

Comments

Thank you for your long and thoughtful response, Arora.  The questions that were not answered, however, remain unanswered.  First I asked how the project was distinguishing between the uses of 1) an actual surname which is also a tribal name and 2) a tribal name placed in the LNAB field when the person doesn't have a surname.  If we are suggesting that we need to clarify in the biography that the name used in the LNAB field is an actual surname, we should need to do that for Smith, Johnson, and Jones.  "Jones is the actual surname," should be placed in bold at the top of every Jones profile.  Putting an actual surname in the LNAB field is how the field was intended to be used.  To have us clarify that an actual surname is an actual surname means that we are treating some people who happen to have a certain national origin differently.  It should be on the project to clarify the different use of the LNAB field whenever it is used for something other than the LNAB (like the name of a tribe).  So the first question remains unanswered:  How is the project distinguishing between different uses of LNAB when a tribal name may be an actual surname or may be an inserted tribe for a person who does not have a surname.  I have not yet heard or understand why a standard could not be used to clearly indicate the different use of the last name field for some Wikitree profiles that represent people of certain national origins. My second question has to do with the claim that putting a tribal name in the LNAB field prevents duplicates.  How?  Since a writer can stuff the LNAB field with any one of the variations of a tribal name, Equayzaince - who has no surname - could be entered as Equayzaince Ojibwe, Equayzaince Ojibwa, Equayzaince Ojibway, Equayzaince Chippewa, and Equayzaince Anishinaabe.  Kabupi - who has no surname - could be entered as Kabupi Sisseton, Kabupi Dakota, and Kabupi Sioux.  So my second question is:  How does that prevent duplicates?  If American Indians/Native Americans are to be categorized, then categories, not the LNAB field, should be used.  An easy solution that would take no programming and is already being used by many more Wikitree-ers than myself is to place "No Surname" in the LNAB field.  True - it is not a surname, but it is more clearly not a surname than is Dakota or Chippewa or something else, and it solves a problem.  I would be happy to explain in the biography why "No Surname" is in the LNAB field.  And it makes it MORE likely that duplicates of Equayzaine and Kabupi will be found.  My questions remain unanswered.  

---

Just a clarification, you DO know that Lakota are Dakota - right?  Dakota (Eastern Dakota) + Nakota (Middle Dakota) + Lakota (Western Dakota) = Dakota aka Sioux.  Also Ojibwe are Chippewa are Anishinaabe.  So if Susie Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Ojibwe and Joe Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Chippewa and Jane Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Anishinaabe and they all entered the same woman, how have we prevented duplicates?

---

We know a surname was an actual surname when we cite a contemporaneous document that records the surname.  Hence, I know my grandfather was John Patrick Schmidt based on his 1882 baptism record.

---

Actually, in reviewing all the responses here, I see that all of your questions have been answered. Mine immediately above is actually a duplicate (worded differently) answer I gave you on March 25th and Kathie has answered the other questions.

---

Jillaine - I am not seeing an answer to "if Susie Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Ojibwe and Joe Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Chippewa and Jane Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Anishinaabe and they all entered the same woman, how have we prevented duplicates?"  Perhaps you could point me to the answer.

---

Kathie wrote above: "Wikitree is a collaborative site, we assume our members are doing the best they can.  Hopefully no one is creating profiles for Native American people without doing some research on them.  It's not always possible to determine what tribe name/identifier a person might have used during his or her life (that name might never have been recorded), so we do the best we can."

She also wrote: "Wikitree isn't treating anyone differently because of race or ethnicity.  The Wikitree database requires something in the the field called Last Name at Birth in order to create a a database identifier.  For the many people alive or dead who have only one name, this system doesn't really work.  They have no "first name" or "last name," they just have a name.  The Native Americans project has determined that putting that name (as best as it can be determined) into the field called "Proper first name" and putting the name of their tribe in the field called "Last name at birth" makes the most sense by making it easier to locate these individuals and making it less likely that duplicates will be created.   We understand that not everyone agrees with this, but we feel it's the best solution given the data base constraints."

---

Again, I am asking for answer to this question:  if Susie Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Ojibwe and Joe Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Chippewa and Jane Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Anishinaabe and they all entered the same woman, how have we prevented duplicates?

I have offered a solution that should would work for people - of most nations and ethnicities - who do not have a surname.  The solution is to enter a name in the first name field and No Surname in the last name field.  Using the current project policy, this man - https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sioux-1- should have the Surname of "Ojibwe and Dakota" or perhaps "Dakota and Ojibwe."  No one has yet been able to tell me how the entries of Equayzaince Ojibwe and Equayzaince Chippewa and Equayzaince Anishinaabe would prevent duplicates.  Categorizing those entries would more likely bring the duplicates to light.  The simple solution of adding No Surname in the last name field allows Wikitree-ers to treat all people with no surname the same with no different treatment of people of certain national origins or ethnicities.

---

SD, you proposed this a year ago or so, and as we told you then, there are no plans to change the way that the Native Americans project uses the Last Name at Birth field for those American Indians who lived prior to their adoption of surnames. I'm sorry that you are not satisfied with that answer.

---

And this year I am proposing that the project document in the profile biography whenever the project uses the LNAB field for something other than the LNAB.  I am proposing that the project document their different use of the LNAB field for people of certain national origins and ethnicities.

And yes - it is very unsatisfactory to be told a great many times that one of the reasons for putting a tribal name in the LNAB field is to prevent duplicates, but no one will answer question:  if Susie Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Ojibwe and Joe Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Chippewa and Jane Wikitree-er enters Equayzaince Anishinaabe and they all entered the same woman, how have we prevented duplicates?  I asked the question last year, and it wasn't answered.  I am asking it this year, and it hasn't been answered.

---

It’s impossible to prevent duplicates. People create duplicates of folks with simple English names all the time.  We just feel this will help reduce the number of Native American profiles that are duplicated and also make them easier to find.  If we find duplicates of profiles that should have used a tribe name as LNAB we merge them into the correct name.  The reason for the merge is noted. Many projects have name standards and still have problems with duplicates.  As far as I know, all profiles are created by human beings and humans make mistakes.