Category talk:Native American
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] change
Suggested change:
This category should probably not be used. There are two different usages of Native American:
- all indigenous peoples
- only indigenous peoples confined to the US borders
As this is ambiguous, any articles that are about (1) should be under Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas & any articles about (2) should be under Category:Indigenous peoples of the United States.
This will clear up any misunderstanding. (See Talk:Native Americans#Indigenous peoples of the Americas for more discussion.)
thoughts? – ishwar (speak) 18:08, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal and the fact that Native American is ambiguous. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ishwar, on the whole I agree with this proposal, for the stated reason that the term "Native American" is ambiguous in its common application. When I had first set up the family of Indigenous peoples of (region) Categories, I was unsure what to do with the articles in the previously-existing Category:Native Americans. Now, if there is general consensus, moving these to the appropriate "Category:Indigenous peoples of..." would be more appropriate, and "indigenous peoples" would be the most neutral and non-regionally specific term available.
- I do have a further amendment to your proposal to suggest, however: namely, that the following four sub-regional categories be used in preference to (or at least alongside of) their parent Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas:
- Of course, further sub-categorisation by country can also be pursued, such as Category:Indigenous peoples of the United States or Category:Indigenous peoples of Brazil; however, there will be several instances where particular groups are not presently or formerly confined to the modern borders of one country.--cjllw | TALK 00:28, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
- I would support this proposal. But I would advise that for categories regarding countries and not continents/areas, we use "Indigenous peoples in {country name}" as opposed to "Indigenous peoples of {country name}". This is preferable because the indigenous people pre-date the country, and it is desirable to avoid implying belonging of an indigenous people to a country. This method of naming is currently done for Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Kurieeto 05:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- These are all great ideas, with which I agree. But I notice that it's a year & a half later, & there is still this category "Native American." So what happened to this proposal? --Yksin 10:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] article proposal
Hello...I want to create an article on Cherokees living outside their tribal homelands. A large number of Native Americans claim to be Cherokee, though a few large-sized tribes/nations and hundreds of tribal groups exist. There's a title called "Cherokee American" sometimes used as a self-title, instead of terms like "part-cherokee", "generokee" and "Pretendian" [1], are condescending to those of mixed White/Amerindian ancestry. It will take time to find all the information on the history of Cherokees, whether are tribal members or evidently of Cherokee descent, live across the United States. I think the article is a brilliant idea to expand knowledge of Native American history and culture. + 207.200.116.14 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there anon contributor. Talk pages for categories (such as this one) are generally not closely monitored by other editors, so may I suggest that you make mention of your proposal at talk:Cherokee instead, where it has a better chance of being responded to. You might also like to make mention of it at the WikiProject which looks after a number of Native American-related articles - WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for some further discussion/advice. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
