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 is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This discussion almost completely revolved about the "Plains Indians", particularly the use of the term "Indian", and you yourself pointed out that no one was discussing the "Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands" proposal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Comment, I was wondering that too. I think that's a perfect alternative suggestion if you also take into account that "Southeastern tribes" is likely to be the common name for the category. Rennell435 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Caribbean is part of North America and is certainly further southeast than the Southeastern Woodlands. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Comment there were/are tribes in the woods of Southeast Asia, and Southeast China (like the 100 yuet). And Southeast Europe... etc. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Sounds good to me, in the interests of trying to create a coherent system, your proposal seems to be in line with the majority of similar subject pages. Heiro21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though it is a longer, less intuitive name. Many of the entities listed are not tribes in the strict sense, but rather chiefdoms. By the way, I notice that Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands still includes a List of Eastern Woodland tribes. -- Donald Albury00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Southeastern Woodlands is a common term for the cultural region for the peoples listed in this article: Google search. As numerous published books on the subject use the phrase "Southeastern Woodlands," it's hardly original research. I'll furnish citations from scholarly sources in the article for the use of the term. "Eastern Woodlands" is certainly more commonly used; however, in Native American studies the north and south woodlands are usually separated due to cultural and linguistic differences, as well as the sheer number of different peoples in both regions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
"Southeastern tribes of the United States" wouldn't be accurate, because, as the article already mentions some southeastern tribes span the Mexico-Texas border. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The Handbook of North American Indians gives a good background on the southeastern cultural region on pages 3-7. For more background on the use of "Woodlands" as a cultural term for Indigenous peoples of the Eastern mainland of North America, see Woodland period. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
None of the tribes listed in the article were living even close to Mexico as the map used in the article shows. The only Handbook of North American Indians I'm familiar with is the multi-volume Smithsonian reference work. If you're referring to this, do you have a volume # and a quote of usage of your proposed title? — AjaxSmack23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the list itself, several of the peoples listed span the US/Mexican border. The map is apparently Norwegian and says it's based on Kroeber; however, in Kroeber's 1939 classification scheme the Tonkawa and Karanawa, who have both lived in Mexico at different points of their history, were included as being marginally southeast (Jackson and Fogelson 6). Clark Wissler goes even further to include lands up to the Carrizo's territory as being southeast. Classification of Native American cultural regions are certainly not set in stone. As now cited the article, Jackson and Fogelson's "Introduction" of the Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 14 discusses in depth the southeastern cultural classification. On page 7, they write: "...E. W. Voegelin (1944) examined native mortuary customs through the Eastern North American, finding links connecting three subregions–Northwest Woodlands, Southeastern Woodlands, and the Prairie-Plains." Throughout most of the book (and most books on Southeastern Woodlands peoples), the assumption is already made that only continental North America, north of Mesoamerica is being discussed, so "southeast" is an adequate designation. Wikipedia is global is scope, so "southeast" is insufficient. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
OK, thanks. I still think the proposal is clumsy and a bit jargonish ("indigenous peoples" and "Southeastern Woodlands" are not typically used to describe the subjects by ordinary American speakers) but the present title is lacking as well. I withdraw my opposition. — AjaxSmack18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem remains, as Donald Albury pointed out, that many of these groups are not tribes - some are confederacies, some villages, some chiefdoms. This cultural area expands beyond the United States. If Indigenous peoples of Southeast North America were proposed, how would it logically not include the Caribbean, which is still part of North America? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Comment I would add, that if we retain "tribes" in the name of this article, then we should look at removing all the entities that were not tribes. For instance, the Timucua were a heterogenous collection of chiefdoms that shared a common language, but never (as far as we know) a common political organization, while the Creek people spoke two different languages (the concept of a "Creek" entity was geographical, invented by whites). "People" is a more inclusive term than "tribe", not bogged down in the question of "what is a tribe?" -- Donald Albury15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES says, "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view." So discussion should focus on the existing and proposed names, as opposed to new names with their own problems. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Well the current name is the most common name for the grouping. So any proposal without that name in the title is technically inventing or choosing a less-clear name. So the issues with ambiguity need to be dealt with in a way that incorporates that name. Rennell435 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a geocultural classification of peoples, which is the most common way of studying indigenous peoples of the Americas. "Southeastern" is too general; "tribes" is factually incorrect. If you read WP:TITLECHANGES, it says the discussion should stick to the pro-existing name and the proposed name and discourages introducing additional compromise names. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Support. The term "Southeastern Woodlands" has been cited here and in the article. "Indigenous peoples" is the best way to describe a heterogeneous mix of indigenous ethnic groups and polities, as those found in this cultural region. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Support per nom. "Southeastern tribes" is ambiguous, and some scholars consider the word "tribe" to be problematic. "Southeastern Woodlands" is clear and uses common terminology. —KevinMyers06:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands. 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.
Currently, the Mocama Saturiwa, and Tacatacuru are listed as separate entities, but Tacatacuru and Saturiwa were both tribes under the Mocama. I propose they be placed under the Mocama in the hierarchy. KiwiNova (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles Mocama, Tacatacuru and Saturiwa agree that Tacatacuru and Saturiwa were chiefdoms in what the Spanish called Mocama Province, and that both spoke the Mocama dialect of the Timucua language. (I prefer calling Tacatacuru and Saturiwa chiefdoms, while Mocama has been called a tribe, although I think 'tribe' is an ill fit for Timucua political organization.) In any case, I support showing Tacatacuru and Saturiwa as sub-parts of Mocama. - Donald Albury22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
