Jump to content

Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Alt text

Alt text is not supposed to duplicate the caption at all, it's supposed to describe the picture as you would for someone who is blind. For example, the current alt text for the Clovis blade says "Clovis fluted blade 11,000 years old". What does "fluted" mean? What are the characteristics of a Clovis blade versus another blade? How can you tell by looking at it that it's 11,000 years old? Is it a knife? What's it made out of? A better description would be "A chipped piece of rock, sharpened into a primitive blade" or something along those lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ok will work on this... will get real description from source Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

new article called Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles

hello yall.. new article to list all the Canadian related pages....pls add to it as of now it list 800 of the 1000+ articles Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Peoples

Peoples insn't a word. The correct plural of person is people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisguyYEAH (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, read this at Wiktionary, [1].

plural of people (already a plural form) - a race, group or nationality.

  1. "The course studies the history of Africa and the peoples who lived there." Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Canadian English.....When you use the word "peoples" you are referring to several groups of people and each group shares a common culture (in this case they are all Aboriginals). The plural for 'person' is 'people'. For example, one person but two, three, four ... people.

(plural peoples) Persons forming or belonging to a particular group, such as a nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc; folk; community.

See also: Indigenous peoples by geographic regions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/indigenous_peoples

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peoples

Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

checking citations

"The area holds evidence of early human habitation in Canada dating from about 20,000 years ago and ending about 11,000 years ago.[31]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihola (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation 31 leads to a Taiga site for The Old Crow Flats. However, there is no mention of early human habitation on that web page. The citation here should be referring to evidence for what the sentence is referring to. Who is suggesting humans lived there 20,000 years ago and what is their evidence? The citation should be improved or the sentence removed.

Are there other poor citations on this page? Nihola (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

you are right ..i think the page info changed ..I have replaced with this [1] and [2]

I will find the books to references the pages as i work in a library .....

ANd yes they are saying they lived there 20,000 years ago...See -->Models of migration to the New World#Understanding the debate

  1. ^ "Introduction". Government of Canada. Parks Canada. 2009. Retrieved 2010-01-09. Canada's oldest known home is a cave in Yukon occupied not 12,000 years ago like the U.S. sites, but at least 20,000 years ago
  2. ^ "Pleistocene Archaeology of the Old Crow Flats". Vuntut National Park of Canada. 2008. Retrieved 2010-01-10. However, despite the lack of this conclusive and widespread evidence, there are suggestions of human occupation in the northern Yukon about 24,000 years ago, and hints of the presence of humans in the Old Crow Basin as far back as about 40,000 years ago.

Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fast. Great. Nihola (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Need you to watch!!

I have made a new article on genetics... could i get all to add the article to your watch list! Indigenous Amerindian genetics we need to watch for vandalism..as this is the core article on Indigenous genetics and is new with no watchers .. Tks guys!!!!! PS me going for FA here soon!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

dividing page

was thinking of making a page called Pre-Columbian era Canada ...so this means i would be moving the majority of the Paleo-Indians period and Archaic period. This would leave us more space to add more details on First nations, Metis and Inuit ...This will take some time.... What do you think??Moxy (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian term

I am not sure what the problem is with the ref?? [2] It clearly say its in decline.Moxy (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding going on here. The reference I removed from the article [3] titled "The Many Uses of the Word "Indian" in the English Language", extracted from the 1907 "Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico", does not mention (and thus does support) the claim that the term "Indian" is "falling into disuse". In fact, it claims that "[t]his term, in spite of its misleading connotation, has passed into the languages of the civilized world." Could you please indicate through a quote where you believe that this reference supports what's being claimed? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok first its best to understand y certain refs are there.. The old saying was "The term Indian is no longer used"..This is wrong so we added this ref to show that Yes its still used, However it is clearly not used often in the general public as stated here...So what we have done is a compromise in saying its in decline...I have also added this ref Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal Moxy (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Moxy, I'm still at a loss in trying to understand why you believe that [4] is a useful reference in the way that it's being used in this article. It's being offered in support of the specific claim that "[t]he descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" are falling into disuse", but it remains unclear to me how this reference supports that position. The information it contains is lifted verbatim from a publication from 1907 (or 1913) and if anything substantiates that the term was in circulation at that time, but in what way does it directly support that the term is "falling into disuse" today? The other references are okay, but again, please indicate in the form of a quote from that material, why you believe that that reference supports what you're contending here. Remember, a reference can only be utilized to directly support what is being claimed in an article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Omg i am completely confused....your edit is asking for facts about y The term Indian is in decline? I also think the ref is useless [5]... This refs were just below i moved them for you to see and/or found better links. But i though the problem you had was the term in decline as with your first edit...Anyways i will remove the Quebec references as i also believe its out dated. Moxy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First Peoples

"First Peoples" redirects here. I would appreciate an explanation, being that I was under the impression that the "First Peoples" is strictly an Australian myth. LutherVinci (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every culture in the world has a "first peoples" myth. Christian cultures have Adam and Eve, Taoists have, well, nothing I guess, or maybe everything. Can you provide some links to explain? If there is a better target article to point to, we should do it. Or perhaps a disambiguation page could be used. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have fix this link, as it should go to Indigenous peoples..This is not a term use just in Canada.Moxy (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the section Native Australians#Belief Systems, they mention briefly an old Myth named "the First Peoples". Of coarse, every religion (even atheism) has some guesstimate as to what the first people on Earth was like, but I am pretty sure that Australia is the only place were the characters are called "First Peoples". LutherVinci (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Family Reunions,Sef Governor.? Nishga Area Kincolith B.C

Bold text 

        To whom, may it concen
                              I have being,contacted by face book,for a family reunion
 Its being told that,many Nishga People are gathering for a Watts family reunion all of kincolith residence are all welcome
over 500 family members are contacted on face book.fund raising in a small self Governor village is kincolith b.c. I am worried of the safty of elders and childern

there is no near by hospital nor police,Anouther concern,we know nisga people has there own laws,most of us watts family is off reserve. My protection as a general person,has no saying of our safty for even 200 members. i have resign, not going This is my address#13 1940 nancee way Kelowna B.C.v1z 3r5 When i asked there is no answer back i need to be 50 miles near hospital is my max.away from citizens.thank-you for hearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.242.59 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 

                   Rhoda Munro,Kelowna B.C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.242.59 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to put this here...

I was looking for an article or section somewhere on prehistoric trade routes between Russia/Siberia area across the Bering Straights with the local indigenous Alaskans, but alas I found no place to put this article on a recently discovered 7th century Chinese bronze buckle in Alaska, so I will leave this here in case a future editor is interested.AerobicFox (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting archaeological find; but I'm not sure what, if anything, it has to do with Canadian Aboriginals. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Future uprising and overthrow of the colonial power

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/201358113923656697.html

How strong is the editorial sentiment to suppress this in Wikistan? Hcobb (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The main icon

The main icon for this page and all it's children shouldn't be the war memorial. It doesn't fit.

In Canada, the term RESERVE is used , not RESERVATION

William Prouty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.104.56 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole world are not aware of why Indians in America are not Indians

This is not a joke. I have found that it is not known by all people in the world, even among the ones who have learned English some years in school, that it should be any problem at all with the bad Latin/English habit to not make a difference between indigenous people in the Americas and "Indians".

Many refugees from Syria and Iraq I talk to today have never heard that "Indians" in America not shall be called "Indians" in English. Some years ago I discovered the same phenomenon in Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia when I was traveling there. Some natives just laughed or other became a little angry. and said "Of course there are Indians in America, everybody knows that!"

So I tried to make a link: Indians. I couldn't find any better way to give people who need it a historical background. But the link was erased after two minutes.

Well, blame Hollywood, not me. The English pages in Wikipedia are not only for educated Westerners or people with English as first language. Btw – some languages have different but similarly sounding words, like "Indier" for ppl living in India and "Indianer" for ppl in Hollywood Western movies. Conclusion: the word INDIAN (in North Am or South Am) should have a link to a page about why – in the Americas were called Indians. If my link to Voyages of Christopher Columbus is wrong – then find/write another, better one for all ppl in the World who are not experts in European navigation mistakes, white mens genocides and todays American egocentricism. --Caspiax 00:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

@Caspiax: Sorry, I was the editor that reverted your change [6], but until now, I somehow missed your attempt to discuss it here, or didn't realise that it was related to my edit. Now that I see, I agree that there's an issue that needs to be addressed. I still feel the edit is not quite what is needed, but I'll put some thought into it, and try to come up with a satisfactory alternative. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten this. All I write in English on Wikipedia lately seems to be reverted. Often the cause is some policy I'm not aware of. But still – This article need a link to a page which explains why "Indians" became the wrong word for the indigenous people already living in America when Columbus arrived. Because people in many countries which have learned English have not learned European-Anglo-American history. "Negro" is another such word. As I understand it is the Spanish and Portuguese word for the color "black". "Black" can still be used about people of African origin living in USA even if other word is preferred since any completely black individual hardly can be sound. In Anglo-America and Europe "negro" can not be used of historical reasons. But in many countries where neither English or Spanish/Portuguese is the native language, the Spanish/Portuguese word has been used changed to a version in the actual language, like "Neger", "Negur", "Negress", "Orang negro", etc, only because some centuries ago it was easier to construct the noun from Spanish "negro" instead of from the English "black". So, an article on Wikipedia English which avoids the word "Negro" should have a link to another page which tells us about the historical reasons why "Negro" is not used in English about Afro-Americans. Caspiax 01:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad move

Think its best we talk about a move away from the Official term used in legal documents. -- Moxy (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Which term do you mean? Sunray (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The term 'Aboriginal'

There is currently a campaign, led by Chief Dean Sayers of the Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways, to ban the term 'aboriginal.' He said something to the effect of "We are not ab-original, we are original," and then compared the word to 'abnormal.' Should we continue using the term, or could we switch to something else (First Peoples, Indigenous, etc.)? FUNgus guy (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, it's a matter of respect to call people what they prefer. As a general rule, when possible, best to use individual tribal/nation names as first choice. First nations, First peoples for Canada, Native American or Native people for the USA. Indigenous works in the USA also. I don't think an outright ban is appropriate (in the USA "Indian" has a specific meaning in US law and statute, for example, as I suspect is true for "aboriginal" in Canada(?)) I'd say definitely avoid it with the Ojibway, given that there is particular offense taken there. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
When speaking of specifics, one should always use the nation's/peoples' proper name: Ojibway, Anishinaabe, Cree, Métis (or, if they self-identify as such, "indian"). My concern is with this page in particular, what umbrella term should we be using for Canada's (ab)original peoples? It appears Wiki's style for all (ab)original peoples is to title the pages "Aboriginal peoples in ___", but maybe we should consider another title? Indigenous peoples in Canada, perhaps? Just a thought. FUNgus guy (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
All we can do here is regurgitate what is out there in the sources as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOURCE. So what do the sources say.... its clear that Aboriginal is the most used including official govermant sites and for stats etc.. We are not here to correct the wrong terms used in the past or to follow or advocate new local trends that are not main stream as of yet.....all we can do is follow the sources. --Moxy (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

“Aboriginal Peoples” is a collective name for all of the original peoples of Canada and their descendants. Specifies that the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada consist of three groups – Indian (First Nations), Inuit and Métis Government and Academic and Newsweb sites :

Books....:

"Aboriginal" is an adjective

Dictionaries commonly describe the word "Aboriginal" as an adjective, needing a noun, such as "peoples" or "languages" (see Merriam-Webster). The term "Aboriginal", used as a noun usually refers to the Indigenous inhabitants of Australia, who were called "Aboriginals" or "Aborigines." The term "Aboriginal peoples" was set out in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, and has been in common use since then. The Department of Justice note about usage Legistics First Nation(s) - Aboriginal provides the following guidance: "The terms "First Nation(s)" and "Aboriginal" should always appear with initial capitals. In addition, the term "Aboriginal" should not be used as a proper noun, but rather as an adjective, e.g. Aboriginal people(s), not Aboriginals."

Increasingly, now that Canada has indicated its intention of adopting the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the term "Indigenous peoples" is in general usage. The two terms can be used interchangeably. I've edited the article to eliminate the use of the term "Aboriginal" by itself. Are there any issues or concerns? Sunray (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Authenticity

Can anyone related to the field confirm whether FNMI culture is portrayed accurately.117.213.21.28 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Notes

(3) "Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada)-ICC Charter". Inuit Circumpolar Council > ICC Charter and By-laws > ICC Charter. 2007. Retrieved September 18, 2009. (57) "Canadian Human Rights Commission :: Resources :: Frequently Asked Questions :: About Employment Equity". Canadian Human Rights Commission. Government of Canada. August 27, 2009. Retrieved September 18, 2009. (97) "Singer Tom Jackson pitches housing complex for Winnipeg". Canada: CBC. October 23, 2009. Retrieved January 27, 2011. SRacinsky (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

First section needs some work

The first paragraph of the article is really difficult to read. It goes very quickly from the overly simple to the excessively technical with nothing linking the sentences together. This paragraph evokes an image of a civilization long gone, which isn't right.

The second and third paragraphs are also quite disjointed and difficult to read.

ArchBiscuit (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion the opening of this article is conceptually disjointed, and although it may consist of individually supportable facts, in my opinion it lacks overall coherence and should be rewritten and expanded upon to reflect what's expected stylistically in a lead section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The first section is very confusing and lacks structure. The transition from one paragraph to another needs to be altered so that there is better 'flow.' Also, I believe that the opening section needs to provide a brief overview of the content associated within the other sections outlined in the article. Louiepolyzois (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible Additions

A notable absence from this article is the inclusion of Aboriginal sport history which is often underrepresented. In regards to section 4, Culture, a possible addition of "Sport" may be beneficial to round out this section. This subsection could highlight the success of Canadian Aboriginal athletes, the vast history of aboriginal sports in Canada, as well as notable Aboriginal sporting competitions such as the North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter Games. JamesGillis (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Building on the addition of sport, this section could incorporate Canadian Aboriginal professional athletes which highlights their successes. Providing their life story and their impact they had towards Aboriginal culture, this could potentially attract a different demographic to read this article. It could also provide valuable information for young Aboriginal athletes and encourage them to participate in sport and recognize that they too can be successful. Louiepolyzois (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think some mention of sports would be good...but actually think a whole article would be better with a small section here leading to a more comprehensive article where we name people. Naming sports figures in this overview article would be a bit much. This is one of the reasons we made Aboriginal Canadian personalities so we can add people of fame that are not historically significant...as i am sure all agree that Bryan Trottier is no Louis Riel-- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts to Enhance Wiki page

Toolbox

The third and 57th, 97th reference within your citations are dead links and leads to an error page. See notes below. I also think that within your references, you should look to cite information that is publicly available to read. Just for further reserach purposes. I think when you are discussing the terminology, in terminology section, it is important to again hyperlink the terminology to the respective wiki page. This will help the reader if they are looking for additional information within the specific terminology without having to leave the section. The term pejorative is hyperlinked twice, both in the into and terminology,each time to a different Wiki page. For consistency, I would refrain from using multiple wiki pages hyperlink in relation to one word, it confusing the reader. They will be able to know by clicking on pejorative, that is used to describe a racist or derogatory word, rather than also hyperlinking it to the Racism page. When referring to the giant beaver when discussing the Pleistocene mammals, I think it would be beneficial to list in brackets the two potential names for the Giant beaver. Currently this links you to a page that has no information regarding the giant beaver other than two potential options that it may refer to. Or for fact sake, eliminate it completely from the wiki page. When discussing the Inuits within the Post-Archaic periods in the history section it may also be beneficial to add information about the Thule People. I noticed that you had mentioned it, but I believe that it would be beneficial to hyperlink this to the Thule people Wiki page. I also agree with some of the below comments, stating that this page it too lengthy. Trying to summarize key points and utilizing hyperlinks can be an affective way of scaling down this extremely informative page SRacinsky (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To build upon the point mentioned above regarding dead links, references #3, #103, #140, #141, and #146 are all inaccessible. If there are any other dead links please feel free to post them. Louiepolyzois (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done all dead links marked editnotice - Best to get wed-archives as per WP:DEADLINK or replace them with scholarly sources from Bibliography of Canadian Aboriginals (Google book tool Converts bare Googlebook urls into {{cite book}} format) - best we done just add web pages that will be dead links in a few months...lets take the time and add real sources that other can get there hands on. I will be honest here I am the editor that took this to the GA review and feel lots needs to be fixed-up since that happened 10 years ago.--Moxy (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

source for later

'the descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" . . . are pejorative'

Agree with the below. The vast majority using the above are not doing so in a pejorative sense. Some people considering them pejorative does not make them so. The reference below essentially puts forth an opinion as well - whose associations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79A0:6300:B87F:EBC0:491B:FFFA (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the first paragraph of the lead, 'the descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" . . . are pejorative.' Is this a reasonable statement? It sounds more like opinion than fact to my ear. Would "are considered pejorative" be more better? There are citations there, but none specifically call the term pejorative that I spotted. —Salton Finneger (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cynthia Levine-Rasky (1 February 2012). Working through Whiteness: International Perspectives. SUNY Press. pp. 286–. ISBN 978-0-7914-8872-0. Native," a term that continues to appear along with "Indian" and "Eskimo" in some contexts despite the pejorative associations these terms carry.--Moxy (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The section on assimilation, residential schools seems to be underrepresented. There should also be a wikilink to the separate wikipedia page on residential schools in Canada. It should also be acknowledged that the term "Aboriginal" is outdatedCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> (Cmnscsimpso (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have unanimous support for the claim that this is now the more common term. Further RMs should continue. Cúchullain t/c 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Aboriginal peoples in Canada → Indigenous peoples in Canada – The term "Indigenous" has largely replaced "Aboriginal" as the term to describe the population consisting of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples in Canada, particularly since the federal government department changed its name from Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada Another sign of this shift is the change in name from CBC Aboriginal to CBC Indigenous. For online discussions see INDIGENOUS OR ABORIGINAL WHICH IS CORRECT? at the CBC News website. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: The chief of the band on whose traditional land I live has banned the word "Aboriginal", saying "We are not Aboriginal, we are Original." FUNgus guy (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Support but lets try and be consistent. Indigenous should not only be used throughout the article but other articles should be moved as well. So I have opened Talk:Aboriginal peoples in Northern Canada#Requested move 3 June 2017 to cover other articles. CambridgeBayWeather
Support--Moxy (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous peoples in Canada. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Critique of the Article

I found everything in this article to be relevant, with no distracting or misplaced information. However, I would recommend that Food and Sports & Recreation receive their own sections, rather than being only mentioned briefly under Culture.

The article stayed well on the side of neutrality, while given equal attention to First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

The reference section was mainly reputable, except for two sources I believe to bias. First citation 144; this source was used to talk about the logo for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, but the source goes directly to the Vancouver 2010 website, an independent source may be more appropriate. The second question citation was 45. This citation was used for information on Crow Flats, however the website it links to looks more like a blog or a personal website than a reputable independent source.

As well two links in the External Links section did not lead to the desired information. The External link for "Map of Historical Territory Treaties" no longer leads to Natural Resources Canada, but rather Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, "On-line Resources," and the External link for "History of Aboriginal Treaties and Relations in Canada" leads to an error page.

Lastly, I believe the census information used for this article is out of date being from 2011, when there is now 2016 census information available

EmStadder (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Critique of Article

This article is well written, and provides information on many different aspects of Indigenous peoples' histories and cultural practices.

However, I believe that a subheading for dance should be added under the Culture section.

I also think that the Politics, law and legislation section should include more information about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Currently the TRC is only mentioned in one sentence of the Forced Assimilation section.

Lastly, I noticed that sometimes the terms "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" are not always capitalized throughout the article. It is my understanding that these terms are meant to be capitalized whenever they are written. Is there a reason that they are written as "indigenous" and "aboriginal" that I am unaware of? If so, why? If not then this should be corrected.

Erintanner (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indigenous peoples in Canada. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

note 25

Is the "Expansionist Party" a reliable source? Is the statement about the Yupiks to which note 25 refers, supported by other sources? best regards, Koos van den beukel (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_peoples_in_Canada/Archive_3&oldid=1076254748"