From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page was moved without discussion

I'm considering reverting. The only reason I haven't is that this also covers Canada and makes some mention of global terms. The Latin America section is unsourced. I think it could stay at an "Indigenous" title, though maybe a briefer one, if that is sourced. If not sourced, we may need to just revert and cut that. - CorbieVreccan 22:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I concur. Any page move on a subject like this should have been discussed at talk first. He iro 00:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The lack of discussion is a clear policy violation and easy revert. Is there any reason to leave it at this title or do you think we should just roll it back? - CorbieVreccan 19:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Roll it back and then discuss if a name change was necessary. The current title seems very awkward.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree. The user who did it should have self-reverted. I'll do it now. - CorbieVreccan 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary(?) date ranges in some section headers

Why are there date ranges in some of the section headers of this article? They seem unnecessary. – Treetoes023 ( talk) 18:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Because it contextualizes when this terminology came into usage, or was/is preferred. - CorbieVreccan 18:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My edit: Native American is a construct of the government of the United States

Doug Weller ( talk · contribs) and Oncamera ( talk · contribs) This comes from the article “Indigenous peoples of the Americas”: …the United States government responded by proposing the use of the term "Native American"… It isn’t my creation, although the wording might be imperfect.

I wasn’t able to verify the reference “The Production of Legal Identities Proper to States: The Case of the Permanent Family Surname”. It seemed suspicious so I didn’t include it immediately. No references are given for the other items in the list.

Mea culpa. Someone else can add that clarification if they want. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

First Americans

The First Americans Museum in Oklahoma, which tells the story of the tribal nations from their own perspective, states the following for the term “First Americans”:

“We were the first on this land, though the last to gain US citizenship. This is an emerging term that differentiates our Indigenous people from descendants of settler communities.”


Is that a sufficient source to add a section here about the term? Taste of Independence ( talk) 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is about one museum's naming decision which is barely commented on in First Americans Museum. Does not seem noteworthy or significant enough to add to this article. Adflatusstalk 05:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page was moved without discussion

I'm considering reverting. The only reason I haven't is that this also covers Canada and makes some mention of global terms. The Latin America section is unsourced. I think it could stay at an "Indigenous" title, though maybe a briefer one, if that is sourced. If not sourced, we may need to just revert and cut that. - CorbieVreccan 22:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I concur. Any page move on a subject like this should have been discussed at talk first. He iro 00:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The lack of discussion is a clear policy violation and easy revert. Is there any reason to leave it at this title or do you think we should just roll it back? - CorbieVreccan 19:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Roll it back and then discuss if a name change was necessary. The current title seems very awkward.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree. The user who did it should have self-reverted. I'll do it now. - CorbieVreccan 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary(?) date ranges in some section headers

Why are there date ranges in some of the section headers of this article? They seem unnecessary. – Treetoes023 ( talk) 18:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Because it contextualizes when this terminology came into usage, or was/is preferred. - CorbieVreccan 18:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My edit: Native American is a construct of the government of the United States

Doug Weller ( talk · contribs) and Oncamera ( talk · contribs) This comes from the article “Indigenous peoples of the Americas”: …the United States government responded by proposing the use of the term "Native American"… It isn’t my creation, although the wording might be imperfect.

I wasn’t able to verify the reference “The Production of Legal Identities Proper to States: The Case of the Permanent Family Surname”. It seemed suspicious so I didn’t include it immediately. No references are given for the other items in the list.

Mea culpa. Someone else can add that clarification if they want. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

First Americans

The First Americans Museum in Oklahoma, which tells the story of the tribal nations from their own perspective, states the following for the term “First Americans”:

“We were the first on this land, though the last to gain US citizenship. This is an emerging term that differentiates our Indigenous people from descendants of settler communities.”


Is that a sufficient source to add a section here about the term? Taste of Independence ( talk) 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is about one museum's naming decision which is barely commented on in First Americans Museum. Does not seem noteworthy or significant enough to add to this article. Adflatusstalk 05:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook