This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MontanaBW, I have reverted your good faith edits to this article, again. When referencing a "god" of a monotheistic religion pertaining to Judaism, Christianity and/or Islam, "God" is always capitalized regardless of nominal grammar rules. The "Christian God", "Abrahamic God," "God of Christianity," God of Abraham" etc. whichever way you word it would always assume capitalization. In my statement above I was only able to get away with it as I am indirecting relating the two, followed by an explanation, ending in capitalization; thus relaying my example; correlating my point. Please read Capitonym#Philosophical, religious, and political terms, where it uses the exact same phrasing you continue to revert; "It is common practice to capitalize the pronouns referring to the Abrahamic God."

I understand your position entirely, but the case here is grammically unique. Furthermore, good luck finding Christian "god" anywhere phrased this way, let it be online, books, stone etc. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Bottomline. It's "God" in this context. Thanks. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 17:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(This comment right above was made in response to RexxS, which he had now deleted perhaps in avoidance of appearing bias, which I am making a case against; see talk history [1]. I will attempt to paraphrase what was said here. It was regarding my alleged reliance on Capitonym#Philosophical, religious, and political terms, which is unauthoritative and that I should be referring to MOS:CAPS#Religion, for Manual of Style purposes, in which fact does suggest the capitalization of the Judeo-Christian deity as "God." However apparently, "not so unequivocally" as I would suggest.) Savvyjack23 ( talk) 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What status quo? You have admittedly agreed that it should be capitalised as "God" as per your above mention. Contrary to your new "stance", instead of upholding your beliefs of a consensus (again, as per your above mention, which used in opposition to my wordy own explanation that actually agree) you are regressing to a now personal bias of your own because apparently I'm "playing games" and "do not have anything important to say." The fact that we even need a discussion for this is deeply concerning, especially to an unsourced passage. Nonetheless, I will seek major outside assistance concerning this matter. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take other editor's comments from elsewhere and place them as if they had made them here. It is a serious offence to impersonate another editor. I also object that you refactored my comment when you copied it over. Wikipedia has a perfectly good system of linking and you can even use diffs to direct attention to a particular edit.

Now to address your concerns: MontanaBW, with whom you are having the dispute, lives (unsurprisingly) in Montana and works to Mountain Time Zone (UTC -0700). She is already well aware of my views on edit warring. If you wait patiently I am sure she will address the points you make, and if you civilly refer her to MOS:CAPS#Religion, there is every chance that you will be able to reach a consensus with her. I sincerely hope you manage to. The bottom line is: don't edit-war to force your preferred version onto an article, no matter how right you think you are. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Gosh… well, the whole thing is pretty murky. God is capitalized with respect to most European religions when it is used as a proper noun referring to a particular deity or defined group of deities, and lowercase when discussing deities in general, something like that. Outside of religion, you have the same situation when dealing with other words that do double duty as a name or title and a generic, for example, the City of New York, or the City for short, versus say the largest city of New York, or cities of New York. I think "the god of [x]" is usually used as a title or reference to a specific deity, not out of any special reverence or respect so much as that everybody knows which god the sentence refers to, a proper noun. Contrast that with saint, where "patron saint of [x]" is usually meant descriptively. That may point to a double standard, where in common English usage, European god references get capitalized, whereas gods of non-European cultures could be lowercase because it is a question that is being explained. FWIW, I read MOS:CAPS#Religion, and I agree with the way it is put there. - Wikidemon ( talk) 19:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, are you kidding me? Impersonating who? Please show me where I have "impersonated" anyone. I strongly resent that comment. If you mean moving said conversation from personal talk page to article talk page based upon your recommendation, then yes I have done that. You should recruse yourself from this discussion as you have boasted about MOS:CAPS#Religion and creating a census, inadvertently agreeing with me, to only revert to a "status quo." I have the right to remove unsourced work for starters and was reverted twice before I reverted MontanaBW the second time, so please get your facts straight before making personal accusations. Second, this all was not done in a 24 hour period, so again please fact check yourself. I kindly, mentioned my disproval while editing and have mentioned the reverts to MontanaBW on her talk page after her second revert, which I have yet to hear a reply from. Then you precede to write me an edit warring message. Please recruse yourself. I have no interest in debating with someone who is taking this personal and is creating a bias atmosphere directing violating the very "Manuel of Style" they had reference in order to satisfy ego. I was simply passing by and noticed this. We're taking about a unsourced passage here, a change of a letter. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff of you making an edit to this page and signing my username to it. No edit summary, no attribution. You signed my name to text that you added and you are responsible for every edit you make. Have you no idea of how serious that is? See WP:TPG #Behavior that is unacceptable and particularly WP:Signature forgery. You copied (not moved) my comments from MontanaBW's talk page to this page, altered them and them placed my signature at the end. That is utterly unacceptable behaviour and if you can't see that, you need to be given a break from editing here.

You have made the same edit to this article three times, no matter that it was over a couple of days, it's still edit-warring. If you think you can game the system by spreading your edit-warring beyond the bright line of WP:3RR, you'll rapidly find yourself disabused of that. I have no interest in participating in the content dispute you have with MontanaBW, but I will not stand by and let your appalling behaviour go unchecked. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well did you or did you not write that RexxS? Instead, why not stand behind it? My intention was not meant to impersonate you; no sir, far from it. Yes, I admittedly "copy-and-pasted" what was said on the talk and that is all it was. I didn't add your signature to what was already there, so I appreciate it if you did not stretch the truth as you see fit. You also made the suggestion by saying how said conversation should be written here. So, I'm going to go back to discussing the topic at hand now. Any other personal statements, can be discussed at my talk page where it is more appropriate. Thank you for your cooperation. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Wikidemon. Technically, the monothestic religions spoken about here are "Semitic" in root and adopted by Europeans, but nonetheless agree with what you are saying here. I too agree with MOS:CAPS#Religion but am unable to gauge a what say you in regards to the context of this unsourced passage. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 21:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this unsourced passage may have been taken from Handbook of North American Indians: History of Indian-White relations (pg. 524), which offers the same context when referring to the "Christian God." Savvyjack23 ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Savvyjack23, Semitic. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammatically, capitalization exists where the word is used as a proper noun. For example, "I spoke to God and he told me... " is using the name of the deity as a proper noun. On the other hand, if we were to say, "Zeus, a god in the Greek pantheon," that would be correct, as "Zeus" is the named deity and his nature ('a god") is descriptive. This is the same here: "The Christian god" is accurate. Were we to say, "The Christians worship God," that would also be correct. Do you see the difference? Here we aren't naming God of the Christians, we are discussing "a god" of a particular religion (which happens to be Christianity, which happens to name its god "God" because it asserts that there is and only can be a single one —though of a trinitarian nature—but I digress). Montanabw ^(talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe how much conversation has been dedicated to this topic. User:Montanabw is correct, when the term god is not used as a personal pronoun it is not capitalized. Yuchitown ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

The Manual of Style is quite clear about when god should and should not be capitalized. The question here is simply context. The passage in the artice is somewhat ambiguous, is it naming the Christian God or is it refering to the Christian god? I administered a simple test and replaced the word god in the sentence with the word diety and would recommend that if the current structure is kept "...do not worship the Christian god" then god should not be capitalized. If the structure is changed to "...do not worship God" then God should be capitalized. StarHOG ( talk) 21:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A better solution (or perhaps a cop-out)?

How about just rewording the passage so it does not refer to big-g God in a way that is ambiguous as to whether it is a proper noun, or perhaps avoiding the word god altogether. I don't think it's necessary at all, a different sentence could convey the exact same meaning. For example, not worshiping a Christian God is more or less equivalent to not being Christian, no? If not, you could say that a heathen in this conception is somebody who does not subscribe to Christianity [and the Christian conception of God]. That is clearly a proper noun. Or else somebody who does not worship the Christian deity. Unless we mean to adopt a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of heathen, the generic word, used by somebody within a religion, applies to somebody who does not accept or practice that religion. - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

All points considered. How about a rename to "deity." No caps (or caps) necessary. Savvyjack23 ( talk) 04:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Yuchitown ( talk) 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

The recent edits and edit summaries have bothered me not just for the vandalism point, but if there is a shread of truth to the claims. I am not of the first people, but I am interested in this article and helping wikipedia present good, strong articles that are free from any sort of bias. As editors we really need to know how people feel about this matter and other sthat we contribute to. What if the person making these edits is of the first people and really does take issue with our branding or labeling with terms like indigenous? What if users asking the same question and come to wikipedia for an answer, and read this article, and go away thinking that this branding is OK because we use it casually in the article? That is what bothers me the most, that if our misunderstanding of an issue allows us to use pajorative terminology that we think is OK, but we're wrong and then because it is in an article, we somehow cause it to be used more often or in otherways normalize its use. StarHOG ( talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Certain individuals come along and decide they speak for everyone in a particular group. You'll regularly see folks come along about change every use of American Indians in articles to something else. While they may individually feel very strongly about a term's usage, they don't speak for anyone but themselves. There are many diverse opinions on terminology. I'm Indigenous, and I use the word Indigenous all the time. High emotions and accusations of "white supremacy" are not acceptable alternatives for citing one's sources. Yuchitown ( talk) 18:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Wow, dramahz! Pawnee activist and author Walter Echo-Hawk advocates using the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a platform for Indigenous peoples of the Americas to demand their rights and social justice. More here Yuchitown ( talk) 20:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Let's say that as a rule, invoking Godwin's rule is a pretty good sign of a NOTHERE situation. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

First:

"Some Europeans have called Native Americans "redskins" or, more commonly, "Red Indians". This is partially based on the color metaphors for race which colonists and settlers historically used in North America and Europe, and also to distinguish Native Americans from the Indian people of India. Such terms are considered pejorative, especially if used by non-Natives."

The term Red Indian etc may be considered perjorative, but by whom? Just by Indians, or just by Americans, or by everyone the world? Surely not by everyone. Thus the wording could use some greater specificity.

Second:

The English-speaking world and Europeans, in loan-translations, used "redskin" and "red Indian" throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to indigenous Americans.

This is certainly not just in the 18th and 19th century. The terms were both common in 20th century cowboy films and books.

And certainly in Britain today, in the 21st century, one can buy a 'Red Indian' outfit in any toyshop or fancy dress hire establishment. 'Redskin' however does appear to have fallen out of use in Britain. Perhaps the wording could be changed to more closely reflect the facts? Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.241.165 ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Such terms (especially Redskin) are considered pejorative if used by non-Natives." Because in Africa, here in Europe, and in Asia they aren't. America and Australia I don't know. 37.76.34.54 ( talk) 14:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Native American name controversy. 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/20120403110006/http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html to http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afn.ca/afnrenewal/yorkton.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813194248/http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642 to http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014642
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503130744/http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html to http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228101053/http://www.allthingscherokee.com/atc_sub_culture_feat_events_070101.html to http://www.allthingscherokee.com/atc_sub_culture_feat_events_070101.html

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) 18:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed two points in this article that I felt are lacking. I have not made changes because I do not feel well versed enough on the subject to make definitive changes without talking first, perhaps someone can add better insight or provide good counter arguments:

1) For Salient Issues: One of the complaints regarding the term Native American that I have heard mentioned repeatedly is that there is a specific implication of ownership or victory over the Tribes. Two of the bullet points addressed the topic vaguely, but I do not feel that it was sufficient to someone who is not aware of the argument.

The bullets currently read:

• Rejection of names used by outsiders and not chosen by the tribe itself, or indigenous people at large
• Rejection of names assigned by an occupying and oppressive colonial government or expedition

The argument I often hear goes something like this: "I'd prefer to be called an Indian or Red Man instead of a Native American because I'm not an American. I'm barely a second class citizen, living on a scrap of land that was dolled out to me by people that killed and raped my ancestors." The idea is basically that it is insulting to be called an American because it is something that is being forced upon them without their consent. That was kind of mentioned in those bullet points, but I don't think it accurately represents to level of resentment and hostility that goes with that sentiment. It doesn't specifically address why there is an issue with being assigned a name by an occupying force - because there was no consensus prior to ascribing the name, which then feeds into the first bullet point of that name not being chosen by each Tribe. I am unaware if the level of hostility that I have experienced regarding this concept is widespread, or if it varies between tribes and individuals. I don't think it would be right of me to edit it without some form of consensus or documentation first, much of what I know about this subject was by word of mouth.

2) For Controversial terminology, "Redskin"/"Red Indian": The closing sentence for the first paragraph reads:

"However, Native Americans have been protesting the use of these names since the 1970s."

First, there is no citation for this statement, which it badly needs.

Second, it's unclear. Is the protest for the Washington Redskins, The Red Mesa High School Redskins, or all teams which use the term Redskin?

Third, I believe that statement is misleading. Not only does the statement seemingly try to combine all Tribes into a single entity, "Native Americans", which is clearly incorrect it, also comes close to implying that all Native Americans have been protesting the use of the term Redskin/Red Indian for the better part of 40 years. I'm sure that there are some that find it offensive, and some that do not. When the most recent controversy of the Washington Redskins was being publicized in 2014(?), I read articles from both Americans and from Tribes, both of which had arguments for and against the use of the term Redskin. This is to say, in my opinion, there is very little consensus, let alone a prolonged concentrated effort by "Native Americans" to have a word and/or mascot banned for nearly a half century.

Sawta ( talk) 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "Redskin" as a term for Native Americans predates its use as a football team name by about 150 years. TychaBrahe ( talk) 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the link in the "Squaw" section for "in-group term" to point to "Ingroup and outgroup" instead of "Speech community." The exampled given in Speech community of a "small town" versus a large city like New York suggest that such communities are regional, whereas the idea that "squaw" might be an acceptable term within a group of Native Americans but pejorative when used by non-indigenous people is based on the groups' cultures, not their locations of residence. TychaBrahe ( talk) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally did not welcome Canada's conversion of aboriginal to indigenous partly because indigenous is nearly impossible to use in a sentence, and partly because it appears to have roots in the word "indian" that I believe is colonialist in the extreme -that is, if you are not from India!

I am being assured that "indi-" prefix derives from latin "in" or "from" (such as in a google snippet that I have preserved and can share), but I cannot find any reference for "indi-" except as "indu-" roughly meaning hindu -or Indian from India. So, my concern has progressed to conspiratorial paranoia ;). Given the entirety of Asia was previously "India" to the West (not to mention the New World), I am believing that the current use is the same as the ancient use: a colonialist term.-- John Bessa ( talk) 19:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I find it hard to take the above seriously, I would advise John to search on the web for "indigenous" plus "etymology" to discover for himself the term's relative innocence. 2A02:A452:9491:1:9465:8FF7:A93:66EA ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the word "American" appears in the title to refer to people who were here before the name "Amerigo" was even first given to a human (as America was named after Amerigo Vespucci) ... is nauseating. In addition, the word "indian" is pejorative in every sense when used by non-indigenous people and shouldn't appear on WP unless it's with the intent to discredit its use. Anyway, what do we expect when colonizers are editing text referring to the oppressed? In a perfect world, this thread would read like an apology.

-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.1.112 ( talk) 21:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the issue of the naming controversy is unresolved on WP (meaning one clear policy) the subject is left to subjective interpretation and as a result edit warring. The article mentions the"Salient Issues affecting the debate"however WP needs a clear consensus to avert and forestall any edit warring. My personal opinion is Native American (NA) or native American with the context of a sentence. It is enough that some of the NA community perceive it to be pejorative, aboriginal and indigenous is too wordy and "intellectual", native is sufficient. Using the word Indian is confusing to a younger, less educated reader who might think the article is discussing the Indian subcontinent. Oldperson ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to the Indigenous wikiproject talk page and ask for input. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think in this situation MOS:VAR applies and therefore no edit warring should occur and whatever "style", here the way Native Americans are referred to, was used first should be kept unless consensus, either in the community at large or on a page's talk page, is formed to make a change. The Editor's Apprentice ( talk) 01:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

For those who need a basic primer, I went into more detail at the bottom of the page over at the M.O.S. discussion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The claim that "most native Americans" would consider the word squaw "highly offensive, derogatory, misogynist and racist" would be hard to substantiate and seems to represent a partisan viewpoint, an impression reinforced by the series of qualifications that follows. 2A02:A452:9491:1:9465:8FF7:A93:66EA ( talk) 15:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been resolved and sourced on the article itself, and I have imported sourcing from there. It's common for those unfamiliar with the topic to raise this objection periodically. Please read the sources and talk page at the main article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the included claim that "Jewess" is offensive. The term is evident in many Jewish books and other sources. Drsruli ( talk) 05:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Two things...

For one, This whole page is just an entire Citation Needed... It is largely an opinion piece and often does not allow many nuances between native communities and the views of the word,

Secondly, it partially ignores the nuanced history in how the word has been largely used by Natives to unify, or how many natives see the attempted name change as an attempt by White communities to force it onto natives to cover up colonialism for a sense of self-righteousness via political correctness. This is an opinion I hear Native people talk about commonly and it has no page on here, even though it is a significant problem that faces native communities. 174.138.194.147 ( talk) 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Which word? Could you clarify what you mean by "the attempted name change"? Is this about the well-intentioned but disruptive users continually changing established uses of "Indian" on WP to "Native American", or something else?

More to the point, I agree we have to do cleanup here. It's easy enough to find cites for the legit content. Anything that is essaylike should be cleaned up, and if there aren't RS sources it should be cut so we can unflag this. Some sources about a topic like this one will be less than academic, which is OK, as it deals with contemporary discussions. But we can certainly do better than this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The section on the term "Injun" claims that the term was originally intended to mock native Americans' pronunciation of "Indian" or something or other.... this seems highly questionable to me. I think it is was more likely an example of excessive yod-coalescence, that is, hick talk. (Similar to, e.g., "jeet?", meaning "did you eat?") Firejuggler86 ( talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can find WP:CITEs discussing it, feel free to add it. He iro 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be absurd to include that in the article, and it was not my intention to suggest any such thing. The subject of this thread was not to discuss alternative theories on the origin of the term "Injun" that might be included in the article - it was to discuss what already IS in the article, which is, in my opinion, highly dubious, and furthermore, is UNSOURCED.

Firejuggler86 ( talk) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely a fairly typical example of eye dialect – the spelling makes the pronunciation look more "exotic" or remote from the norm than it really is. It's unclear if it was originally intended to mock the pronunciation of Native people or white settlers, or both, but it's insulting either way (even if it's not intended as racist but as classist mockery), and in any way, this is already noted in the section (and has in fact been since 2012). -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookecur ( article contribs).

• Be careful. You just stepped into a minefield. What this article needs most is referencing for several unreferenced sections, and possibly a proposal to remove some unreferenced material if good references can't be found. That's boring work but it's useful and will create a better article. Smallchief ( talk) 23:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a little weird that "tribal" is not discussed as a term in use, but it is used several times in the article. In my experience, individuals are most accepting of "tribal". They say it most frequently, or they will say their exact tribe name. After that, they actually tend to say "Indian" (only a little less then "tribal", I would say, maybe tending toward older people preferring "Indian"). However, I rarely see any academic sources, news, et cetera use "tribal", and they actively advocate not using "Indian". They most frequently use "Native American" in the US and "First Nations/Peoples" in Canada, though "Indigenous" is making headway in the US, I suppose inspired by the anthropology departments at the University.

This is an issue with WP:RS, especially when trying to note the common experience vs the platformed voices. Reliable sources are simply not representative of the words people typically use. And the US census bureau is very confused on the issue (but at the same time, they want to make sure people "self identify" as they would identify them, so it's a hard task). 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The article says, without any citations, "Some Europeans have historically called Native Americans "Red Indians". The term was largely used in the 18th and 19th centuries, partially based on the color metaphors for race which colonists and settlers historically used in North America and Europe, and also to distinguish Native Americans from the Indian people of India." I'm not sure this is accurate; in the 1960s it was normal for British to refer to "Cowboys and Indians" or "Red Indians". That's way into the 20th century and it wasn't just "some" folk. In my recollection it wasn't used in any derisive or offensive way either - Red Indians were to be respected and, sometimes, feared. It's not my area of expertise, so I'm just flagging this up. Bermicourt ( talk) 22:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Red Indians" Any particular sources confirming that this was in wide use during the 20th century? I have never heard of it outside Wikipedia. The Greek language distinguishes between a person from India (Indos, Ινδός) and a person from the Americas (Indianos, Ινδιάνος).

-Cowboys and Indians used to be quite popular in Greece too, under the term "Καουμπόηδες και ινδιάνοι". I can still find plenty of Greek pages vilifying those nasty cowboys and lionizing the "good" Indianoi, just when I was a kid. See for example these page accusing the Americans of war crimes against the Sioux. Dimadick ( talk) 06:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This Australian grew up in the 1950s and 60s, and was very familiar with the term Red Indians to describes the people we later learnt to call native Americans. I wish I could think of a place to find a reference to this. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've certainly heard the term "Red Indians" mostly in old literature. I don't consider that derisive nor do I consider the word "Indian" insulting. The term "Native American" is ahistorical, imprecise, and artificial. Call them "Indians" which is what they've been called for 500 years. And, by the way, I'm a card-carrying member of an Indian tribe. Smallchief ( talk)

I agree with Smallchief on all these points. My father's father was half Cherokee, and I have relatives who are of Indian ancestry from other tribes, and they all used the term "Indian". The most zealous proponents of the term "Native American" seem to be white, not Indian, in my experience. Carlstak ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Indian" might work for you folk, but I have quite a few neighbours who were born in India. I naturally describe them as Indian, and they do too. Here's a quote from some news in my country today - "Rachin Ravindra took the other three Indian wickets including Shubman Gill..." This could get a bit confusing. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Confusion between Indians from India and American Indians is usually clear with context. I would also argue that the word "Indian" as used to describe the people who mostly live in India today has a complicated origin and history. The word "Indian" is of Greek derivation and refers to the Indus River, which today runs through Pakistan, not India. I, for one, am not prepared to concede the exclusive use of the world "Indian" to the people living in or associated with the present-day country of India. Smallchief ( talk) 14:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Addressing us as "folk" in this context sounds condescending. Carlstak ( talk) 01:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Does it? Sorry. No insult was intended. I don't understand. Can you explain please? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds uncomfortably close to the speech of white supremacists addressing black people, or any ethnic minority, as "you people", as when Donald Trump said to Yamiche Alcindor, a black reporter, "You know, why don't you people act — why don't you act in a little more positive — it's always trying to get you, get you, get you." Carlstak ( talk) 01:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the wonders of our allegedly common language. It's a common expression here in Australia to address a diverse group of people, used by people who could not be further from being white supremacists. I used it above to address the previous two posters, for whom I have the utmost respect. But if it makes me sound like Trump, I promise to never say it again. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply, HiLo48; I'm sure you didn't intend any harm, but the words "you people" are used that way all the time by racists here in the states, who take advantage of the ambiguity so they have, or think they have, "deniable plausibilty". Trump's base and members of the US Congress who pander to them hear the racist dog whistles clearly, but play along in their customary bad faith. Carlstak ( talk) 02:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak that's only one usage of it. You people is used as a way of collecting a group of people into a short phrase, not usually in a racist meaning. It depends on what part of the country you live in as well. 146.168.11.207 ( talk) 13:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You can chuck Carlstak's comments out the window here. Policing people's words is why this "controversy" article exists in the first place, and Carlstak's comments are an effort of word control, not honest discussion. I'd think you people knew this. (See what I did there?) 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 21:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For the 50s and 60s, the "Red Indian" was terminologically identical to the "Yellow Man". The lyric from Born in the U.S.A. (song) really rings true about this, and how it was used. "Sent me off to a foreign land - To go and kill the yellow man". There's tons of "Red man" talk in the Cowboy movies of the 50s and 60s. These long forgotten color designations were rarely derogatory on their own, but highlighted the alienation of certain peoples from the subject people (usually Americans, assumed white). Even the old children's Christian song uses it plainly: Red and yellow, black and white, They are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 21:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree. The user who did it should have self-reverted. I'll do it now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)