This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia 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.
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.
Regarding Biruitorul 's concerns, first GSE has an article on Tahitians (Russian: Таитяне), it does not imply that the subject has something to do with the USSR. Secondly, one of the most significant indigenous Polynesian peoples of Oceania is a direct translation of the opening sentence один из самых значительных аборигенных полинезийских народов Океании. Cheers Brandt 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that's what the GSE calls them. But what exactly does it mean? How did they go about measuring the significance of various peoples? I assume these questions can't be answered, in which case we're left with "one of the most significant indigenous Polynesian peoples of Oceania, according to the GSE", which renders the whole thing pretty trivial, meaning it could be dropped. - BiruitorulTalk 16:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've reread that article, the explanation is nowhere. You may remove the ref if you wish, but I have nothing against it. Brandt 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
From second paragraph of Tahitians#Pre-European period and customs: "...three major classes: ariʻi, raʻatira and manahune. Aliʻi were relatively few in number while manahune constituted..." Why does the first sentence introduce "ariʻi" but the second sentence mentions, "aliʻi"? Is this merely a typo, or is it significant? Newportm (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a typo, they are the same. Brandt 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure that this is an authentic picture? It looks like it's a posed picture of people who may or may not be native Tahitians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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. 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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Support all of them. For consistency and to differentiate from the articles on their languages. Not sure about the Negrito though, as it's not exactly a single ethnic, linguistic, or even genetic group. The only thing they basically have in common is phenotype.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Support Articles on ethnic and national groups are named inconsistently "Fooians" or "Foo people," probably due to differences in usage. Absent an overarching guideline, I prefer the latter for accuracy. --BDD (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose all except Lanoh → Lanoh people and Ibaloi → Ibaloi people. There is no ambiguity for the others and in some cases like Negrito there's no other similar term for possible confusion. For others such as Polynesians, sources do not support that there is one "people" at all. — AjaxSmack 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There definitely is. As much as there is for the ultra-super broad term of Asian people. There are definitely Polynesian languages, Tahitian language, Samoan language, etc.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have fizzled out, but the discussion below about Malik Joyeux highlights the ambiguity in, at least, "Tahitians." I don't think we entirely escape that ambiguity with "Tahitian people," but I do think it's an improvement. It better implies "a people," rather than just a geographic population. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Support all but Euronesian and Negrito, which are not ambiguous. (Yes, that's ignoring the "-s" for ambiguity purposes.) Kanguole 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on WP:ETHNICGROUP, several of the titles should be plural (e.g. Negrito peoples which are "several ethnic groups" according to the article intro). The status quo presents no such problem and this nomination is solution still searching for a problem. — AjaxSmack 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, per AjaxSmack, and because the rationale for the move is not very strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Support that Lanoh should be Lanoh people. The same goes with Batek should be Batek people. These are very specific group of people. I did not realize that there is such discussion going on until 2 pages were moved by Cuchullain today. Is there a consensus to make the changes? Jeblat (talk) 04:00, 25 January 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.
I don't even know why you (UnQuébécois) are arguing this. I was the first person who added Malik Joyeux, Pomare IV, Omai and Pouvanaa a Oopa onto this article. I had my doubts about Malik Joyeux's actual ethnicity when I was choosing four famous "(Native) Tahitians", and since I can't find any indication that he was one and his name (Joyeux) sounds French, so I removed him and replaced him. It doesn't matter that he was on Tahiti. This is definitely an article about the "indigenous peoples of Tahiti and thirteen other Society Islands" as the first sentence of the article suggest not an article about residents or descendants of settlers or Paul Gauguin would be on here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be claiming ownership?
A person's name does not denote their "lineage", for example many "African Americans" adopted the names of their slave owners, like Smith, and Jones, does that make them no longer "African American"? Many "colonized" peoples take on the names of the society that conquered them, that does not take away their origins. Do you have anything that shows he is not of "Tahitian" stock? At what point is someone not "indigenous", 75%, 50%, 25%? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have sources that show he is from Tahiti, no other proof either way of his "ethnicity". --Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not. I merely pointed out the facts. Tahitian history can't be compared to African American history. Tahiti was never "colonized". It was annexed to France with favorable rights granted to its citizentry's (native or non-native). Very few Europeans settled these islands hence the large percentage of natives today compare to other islands like Hawaii. Surnames were already established in the period of the Kingdom prior to French annexation and no Tahitians were enslaved so I don't think they would take on the surnames of their masters. Since there are no proof that he was of native origin, it would negate my edit in including him in the first place, would it not? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Now you are just being ridiculous. I did not state that Tahiti was colonized, nor that they were enslaved, I was trying to demonstrate that a surname does not denote necessarily lineage. Using your "no proof" argument, then we should not have any pictures at all. If a person is born somewhere than it is assumed that they are native, unless there is proof to the contrary. For Example: Johnny Doe, a Someplacian of Somewhereelses decent, is the leading blah blah blah. Or: Jane Q Public, Born in Somecountry of Someothercountry Parents. And again, even if one parent or grand parent was not native, does that make him no longer a native because he is only 50% or 75% "pure blood"? You say that "Very few Europeans settled these islands...", so the likely hood of someone being born in Tahiti not being of Tahitian descent seems to be lower, surnames change due to marriage and do not reflect someone's full lineage.--Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎 06:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following: Paternal Grandfather LaGuardia (Italian), Paternal Grangmother O'Connor (Irish), Maternal Grandfather MacDunough (Irish), Maternal Grandmother Joyce (Irish) - I marry a "pure blood" Irish women, named McHugh. My children would all be "LaGuardia" - does that mean they are not Irish? --Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎 06:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You can't assume a person is native (in this case meaning ancestrally indigenous) unless he has blood. If he was 10% or less Tahitian blood, he should be on here. If he is 0% then no. I've said nothing about blood/ethnic purity.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It still a guess either way. I can say that his parents immigrated to Moorea from France and named him Malik to make him sound more Tahitian? (I am actually not too positive if Malik is a French or Tahitian name) and he learned to surf and became famous for it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have anything that will back up that his parents immigrated to Moorea from France? That to me would better indicate that he is not of "Tahitian" (in the Maori) sense, otherwise it is safe to say someone born in Tahiti is Tahitian. Given that the lede section describes a Tahitian as both "indigenous" as well as "the modern population of these lands of mixed ancestry", which would include people would have either "indigenous" or "French" surnames, we have no reason to discriminate against, or assume that someone with a "French" sounding name is not "Tahitian". Like in my example above, "my children" would have an "Italian" name, with 12.5% Italian blood and 87.5% Irish blood, you can't assume that they aren't Irish just by them having an Italian name. In somewhat "closed" cultures, like Tahiti (indigeneous peoples), and Québec (French colonists), with lower "immigration" rates you find this type of situation very frequently.--Education does not equal common sense.我不在乎 14:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the article seems unsure of its own scope. The hatnote says it's "about indigenous people of Tahiti," and the three people currently pictured seem to fit that description. But sure enough, the first sentence says Tahitians are "indigenous peoples... as well as the modern populations." Compare to the dab page Hawaiians, which distinguishes between residents and natives, with only the latter having a specific article. This one certainly seems to refer more to the ethnic group, but clarity would be welcome. As for the case of Joyeux, it seems clear to me that he was Tahitian in the sense of a resident, but we don't have any evidence that he was of indigenous descent, so his inclusion hinges on the scope of the article. Personally, I think it makes sense to make the article exclusively about the ethnic group, noting in a sentence that "Tahitians" is also a simple demonym. Also see the dab page Tahitian, which resembles the Hawaiians one. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It is also a difference of history in my opinion. When referring to Native Hawaiian, it always seems to necessary to insert the Native part first because the term "Hawaiian" has grown to include all people/residents of the islands regardless of ethnicity while in most countries/area, like Tahitian, Tongan, Samoan, or Fijian, the addition of Native is unnecessary, which is like the similiarlity in the fact their is no need to distinguish between Native French people and non-native French people, etc.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the page Tahitian to include residents and aboriginals like the Danish page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)