Talk:Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America: Anishinaabe

	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.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anishinaabe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Anishinaabe peoples on Wikipedia.

Michigan Indian Directory[edit]

The last Michigan Indian Directory was published in 2012, and no more recent versions have been published. is a cached version and the only mention of the term "Mackinac" is in reference to Mackinac County DHS. There is a listing of "State Historic Tribes," which is unclear—are they saying the tribes existed in history? While it clearly reads "Federally Recognized Tribes" it does not say "State Recognized Tribes" anywhere. Under the ambiguous historic tribes' listing, "Mackinaw Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians" are listed.

Michigan tribes, both state and federally recognized, are listed under the "Midwest" region by the National Congress of American Indians. Their directory for Midwest has no listings for either a Mackinac or Mackinaw tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Thanks. I tried to figure this out also earlier before I reverted, and could find nothing that said that these "state historic tribes" had state recognition. Further search turns up some snippets in books and [1] which says "Cunently, three criteria define an ‘Indian’ from the state’s perspective, compliance with one of which is necessary for recognition as ‘Indian’: 1. a person must be a member of a group which is federally recognized and must carry a card showing such affiliation; 2. a person must be a member of the Confederation of State Historic Tribes, or; 3. a person must be a member of a recognized group from another state." So I'd say that yes, this group is state recognised. See also [2] Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't they listed on the NCAI and NCSL 2015 lists? Tribes lose federal recognition (Chinook Indian tribe), so presumably tribes can lose state recognition. If the state of Michigan published a tribal directory in the last three years that would help. NCSL has no state-recognized tribes listed for Michigan. Yuchitown (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

Actually I cannot find anything published by the Michigan government mentioning state-recognized tribes in the past year. All I could find in the news about the Mackinac Band is that they are tried to sue the US DOI instead of going through the federal recognition protocols. Nothing about state-recognition is mentioned. Yuchitown (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is a voluntary membership organization, which tribes can choose to sign up and pay for. Only tribes that have chosen to be NCAI members are listed on their page. Thus NCAI does not define or determine the recognition status of tribes. NCSL is a non governmental organization that does not determine the status of tribes. It is best to go with the strongest evidence, which happens to be the Michigan Indian Directory. The directory is published by the government of the state of Michigan and clearly lists the Mackinac Bands as a State Tribe. 174.61.182.242 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither NCAI or NSCL decide who is state-recognized; they simply report it. That entirely incorrect that NCAI only listed its members on its tribal directory. The Michigan report is three years old and the state of Michigan has produced nothing since then confirming state-recognition. The three-year-old Michigan Indian Directory also lists a different name. Since this is the only document supporting any claims of state-recognition, should the article's name be changed to "Mackinaw Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians"? Yuchitown (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

After further research the Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians is listed as a "state historic tribe" as recent as 2015 in Michigan's State Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2016. If you search there are numerous state documents attesting to the Mackinac Bands' status as a "state historic tribe". 174.61.182.242 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a citation. Add it to the article. BTW, I'm looking but cannot find—is there anywhere the State of Michigan defines what a "state historic tribe" is? Yuchitown (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply]

I haven't looked for a definition, Ill look and get back to you. 174.61.182.242 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if it refers to tribes that occupied territory before or at the time Michigan became a state. That was certainly true of many of the Chippewa and Ottawa bands. In another place (need to check), I read that these people were formerly counted as part of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, but withdrew in order to pursue separate recognition.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal enrollment numbers should be consistent[edit]

The article says in the body there are 3,000 members of the tribe; the infobox says 4,000. Neither number has a source. There should be a cite and the number should be the same or otherwise explained.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]