Talk:Native Americans

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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 the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles

Indigenous peoples of North America

This disambiguation page 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

Requested move 18 September 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: no consensus. Good discussion, reasonable arguments from both supports and opposes. Ultimately the votes were roughly split and so too was the strength of argument. While there was a general acknowledgement that the term most prominently referred to those in the US, there was clearly not a consensus on whether it referred to them more than anywhere else combined. Perhaps we could restructure the dab page somewhat to give Native Americans in the United States more prominence? Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans → Native Americans (disambiguation) – Redirect Native Americans to Native Americans in the United States, per WP:PRIMARY. Some of the entries on the disambiguation page appear to be original research; e.g. First Nations of Canada are not referred to as Native Americans (except inasmuch as they're within the category of indigenous peoples of the Americas, which "Native American" is (rarely) used to mean, as a confusingly ambiguous blanket term). The DAB page's current breakdown of just about every article we have on subtopics of indigenous peoples of the Americas isn't how we do DAB pages. No one ever writes "Native Americans" and specifically and only means "indigenous peoples in Ecuador", so entries like that should not be on this page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Moxy (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. "Native Americans" is a U.S. neologism that is rarely used by peoples outside of that country. — AjaxSmack 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Contrary to what the previous comments suggest, it was established in the last RM that "Native Americans" is used to refer to peoples outside the United States and as such is too ambiguous to be helpful. "Native Americans" isn't a neologism and examples of its use for peoples in other countries are easily found.[1][2][3][4] Cleaning up the dab page is another matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is a 20th-century neologism according to the Native American name controversy. "The use of Native American or native American to refer to peoples indigenous to the Americas came into widespread, common use during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s. This term was considered to represent historical fact more accurately (i.e., "Native" cultures predated European colonization), while activists also believed it was free of negative historical connotations that had come to be associated with previous terms." It has been in use for about 50 to 60 years. Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something that's been the common use for over 50 years is not a "neologism", and at any rate, the phrase goes back much farther than that. The Native American Church dates to the early 20th century, and the phrase "Native American" in the American Indian sense dates back to the 18th century if not before.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The term is used throughout the English-speaking world primarily to refer to people within the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the most common single use, but it's demonstrable that it's common for the term to be used for people outside the U.S.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decreasingly so, and it's always been a minority usage; there's a very clear WP:PRIMARY topic here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some evidence of that, as it doesn't appear to be either uncommon or decreasing on JSTOR or Google Books.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC would most certainly disagree that it's commonly used for people outside the US! Yes, it's a neologism. Yes, it's a PC term. Yes, it's meaningless (anyone who was born in America is a "native American"!). But is it most commonly used to refer to indigenous people from the United States? Yes. And is it commonly understood to mean that by almost all English-speaking people? Yes. Let's face it, people from other countries in the Americas are not generally known as Americans (although they might be known as South Americans, Central Americans or North Americans), so I fail to see why the indigenous peoples of those areas would be known as Native Americans. And they're not. Look at Americans and see what the article is about. Is it about people from the Americas in general? No, it is not. Same with African Americans. There are plenty of people of African descent in Brazil, for instance. But is that article about them? No, it is not. Why people think this article should be any different is anybody's guess. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a neologism, and it doesn't really matter if it's "PC" or not. Nor does it matter what "Americans" usually means on its own. To redirect this title to Native Americans in the United States would require demonstrating that a clear-cut majority of sources for "Native Americans" refer to people within the United States to the exclusion of all other countries. That's not in evidence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I think the sources quite clearly show that without qualification it almost exclusively refers to people from the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My list of sources show that 6 of 10 sources for "Native Americans" from the 1st page of Google Books include peoples outside the United States. No contradictory evidence has been presented.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging all participants of the last RM as it's likely many have missed this one (as I almost did), as its setup didn't leave a notification at Native Americans in the United States: Randy Kryn, Rjensen, SilkTork, Feminist, In ictu oculi, GPHemsley, Rmhermen, The Transhumanist, Prisencolin, SMcCandlish, Maunus, CookieMonster755, MrStoofer, Andrewa, Amakuru, Coolcaesar, Simon Burchell, Berty688.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am outside the US and the term "Native American" clearly includes indigenous peoples of (at least) South America. MrStoofer (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have disambiguation hatnotes for a reason, and would use something like {{Redirect|Native American|pre-Columbian populations of the Western Hemisphere and descendants thereof|Indigenous peoples of the Americas}}. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could justify anything with argument. Why not have Centre-forward redirect to Harry Kane and then have something like this at the top {{Redirect|Centre-forward|the position of forward generally in association football|Forward (association football)}}? MrStoofer (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Descendants of pre-Columbian populations? Wouldn't this definition also apply to the Mestizo population of Latin America (people of mixed descent), the Zambo (people of mixed African and Amerindian descent), the Pardo (people of mixed European, African, and Amerindian descent), the Mestiço and Caboclo of Brazil, the Métis in Canada, and the Métis in the United States? Partial Amerindian descent is actually widespread, due to 6 centuries of interbreeding between Amerindians and other population groups. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cuchullain. In the US, this may only mean those in that country, but internationally it can certainly be understood to mean any indigenous person from the tip of South America all the way up to Canada and maybe Greenland too. A dab page serves readers best, or else a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which covers the whole topic. — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just the US. I'm from England, and I wouldn't think of anyone else if the term Native Americans was mentioned. I doubt if many other British people would either. The simple fact is that, despite the opposition of some, "Americans" almost exclusively in common usage refers to people from the United States and "Native Americans" therefore refers to indigenous people from the United States. Just as "America" almost exclusively refers to that country. It may be unpalatable to some, but that is clear common usage, and common usage is our guide to article naming on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Necrothesp, discussions of common usage in Wikipedia usually depend on links to printed or online sources which use particular terms for the subject of any given article. Not on our personal experience with a term. Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, do excuse my ignorance. I've only been here for 13 odd years! I just can't believe anyone in the English-speaking world would hear "Native Americans" and not think it was referring to people from the United States. The British media certainly don't feel the urge to spell out who they're referring to when they use the term. For example, see the BBC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons as given in the last RM, which is worth reading in conjunction with the comments here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose term used for all of N America or even of all of Americas. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per dictionary entries. See definitions in Websters, Collins, Cambridge, Oxford, Macmillan, Princeton's Wordnet, Wordsmyth for Beginners, Wordsmyth Intermediate, Wordsmyth Advanced, Dictionary.com, Your Dictionary, thefreedictionary, and even Wiktionary. As you can see, there is definitely a need for a disambiguation page at Native Americans. The Transhumanist 17:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Native American currently redirects to Native Americans. The Transhumanist 17:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The descriptive phrase native Americans is far broader than this US usage. The capitalised phrase Native Americans may perhaps be argued either way, but this DAB needs to cover both senses. Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From the first pages of a Google Books search for "Native Americans":

Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples: covers peoples in various New World countries, including Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and others.
The Wisdom of the Native Americans: Mostly about the U.S. but includes some material from indigenous Canadians.
Marxism and Native Americans: Includes Canada.
Native Americans, Christianity, and the Reshaping of the American Religious Landscape: Includes substantial information on Canada as well as info on Mexico and other countries.
Native Americans: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Peoples: Explicitly includes Canada and some peoples of Mexico.
Diabetes in Native Americans: The Eastern Tribes: Explicitly includes Canada.

6 of the 10 books from the first page of searches, all of which include the term "Native Americans" in the title, include peoples outside the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone challenging the idea that the term has sometimes been used more broadly to mean "indigenous people of the Americas". This RM explicitly acknowledges this is true. It's just not the WP:PRIMARY usage. Your six books are not a statistically significant sample. It's much more instructive to do a whole series of N-grams on specific phrases in aggregate usage, like "Native Americans of [placename]" [5], etc., and note in particular that ones like "Native Americans of Brazil", "Native Americans of Guatemala", etc., typically come up with zero results. Same goes for "Native Americans of Central America" and "... of South America" and "...of Latin America". Contrast that with plenty of results for "... of New Mexico" and "... of Texas". You get similar results if you start using alternative constructions like placename first and adjectival placename first. E.g., lots of results for "California Native Americans", much, much lower for "Mexican Native Americans" and "Canadian Native Americans", also fairly low for some US states (especially East Coast ones – where the indigenous population has been suppressed for a few extra centuries), also low for Alaska[n] (Americans are pretty clear that the Inuit are distinct), and zilch for Latin American countries like Brazil [6] [among other such searches] The term is just overwhelmingly US-centric [7] The only noteworthy blip I could find that was "North American Native Americans" scored fairly high compared to the rather informal "U.S. Native Americans", but it's still totally dwarfed by "Native Americans in the United [States]" [8] Can't actually search on the full phrase (5-word limit!), but there are probably very few false positives for things like "Native Americans in the United Way", etc. There are some curious gaps [9] until one remembers that in the rural Western states the usual term is "Indians". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I do understand where you're coming from. But I just don't see that most people, in the US or anywhere else, use the term "Native Americans" only for peoples in the present boundaries of the US. They use it in the same sense as "Indians", "American Indian", "indigenous Americans", etc., which may or may not refer to the US specifically.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentGood job on finding published sources Cuchullain. But did you notice that most of these sources are from the United States? "African and Native Americans" (1993) was written by American writer Jack D. Forbes (who was from California) and published by University of Illinois Press (the company's headquarters are in Champaign, Illinois). "The Wisdom of the Native Americans" (1999) was written by American writer Kent Nerburn (who is from Minnesota) and published by New World Library (the company's headquarters are in Novato, California). "Marxism and Native Americans" (1983) was written by multiple authors, but the editor was college professor (with a reputation for plagiarism) Ward Churchill (who is from Illinois) and the publisher was the currently defunct South End Press (the company's headquarters used to be in Boston, and were later transferred to New York City). "Native Americans, Christianity, and the Reshaping of the American Religious Landscape" (2010), was written by multiple writers, but the two editors were Joel W. Martin and Mark A. Nicholas (who seem to be American academics), and the publisher was the University of North Carolina Press (the company's headquarters are in Chapel Hill, North Carolina). "An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Peoples" (1998) was written by Barry M. Pritzker (I could not locate bio information on him), and the publisher was ABC-CLIO (the company's headquarters are in Santa Barbara, California). "Diabetes in Native Americans" (1994) was a specialist publication by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (a U.S. government agency with headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland). None of these sources seem to reflect use of the term in Canada, Europe, or Australia. Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not surprising that most sources using "Native Americans" would be from the U.S., as that's by far the country that publishes the most work on them, and is where the term is most common. If it's not the most common within the U.S., it's a fair indication that it's not the most common, period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Link Ninja is useful for opening multiple links in tabs at the same time (in Firefox), for example, to look at all the links listed in the posts above. The Transhumanist 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-Oppose' - simply not a reasonable move. We need a general article Native Americans, including all Native American populations in the Western hemisphere, as well as an individual spin-out article on Native Americans in the US. For individual countries we will simply use the most used temrinology for the given country e.g. "First Nations in Canada", "Indigenous peoples of Mexico" and "Native Americans in the US". But the unqualified term "Native American" subsumes all of these groups.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we already have such an article, properly at Indigenous peoples of the Americas. "Native American" is a synonym of that and subsumes all of those groups only in a minority usage, which will be covered by a DAB hatnote. This really is a straightforward WP:PRIMARY case. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what, I am sorry - I didn't even read the proposal and when I was tagged I just assumed that it was a repeat of the discussion moving the article to "Native Americans in the United States" which I already opposed once, so I just added that rationale. Sorry for being sloppy like that. Of course this should be either a disambiguation page or a redirect to "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I think you're confused - the proposal isn't to redirect Native Americans to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, it's to redirect it to Native Americans in the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely am confused, but I wouldn't support a redirect to that article - but would prefer for it to be a disambiguation page if that is the question.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just FYI, while I strongly oppose the currently proposed move (and have voted above), I remain of the view (expressed during the previous RM) that Native American and Native Americans should redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. But I can live with the current situation as the second best option. MrStoofer (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has clearly been demonstrated above that in reliable sources, such as books, the term "Native American" does not specifically apply only to the indigenous people of the United States. Perhaps this nom is a case of WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the argument though, it's whether most books and other sources that use it mean Indigenous peoples of the United States, and they clearly do. That's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by definition. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - primarily only used in the U.S. to refer to this topic. Red Slash 17:25, 6 October 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.