Talk:Indigenous cultures of North America

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This should be retitled[edit]

There was a Vfd discussion about Roma people, and it was redirected to Roma culture in Europe, on the basis that peoples are not appropriate to gawk at or objectify, but their culture is a quite reasonable reason to travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make some suggestions. How about "Native cultures in North America"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early settlement[edit]

Archaeological site on BC coast, about 14,000 years old. Pashley (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA, tool users, almost certainly genus homo but it is not clear what species. Pashley (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage, headlined Neanderthals in California?. Pashley (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some claims of Melaesian people (related to Papuans & Australian aborigines) in South America circa 30,000 BC, & some recent studies [1] [2] that show Melaensian genes in both North & South America. Pashley (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on Triquet Island. Pashley (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Aleuts?[edit]

This is the current lede:

The Indigenous Peoples of North America, also known as the First Nations or American Indians and Eskimo or Inuit, are the tribes and nations in North America whose ancestors first arrived on the continent in 10,000 BC or earlier.

Why aren't the Aleuts mentioned? Is there a good reason, or should they simply be added? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Rewrote paragraph & added Aleuts. Pashley (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert[edit]

I do not understand why this edit reverted what looks to me like a valid contribution: revert Pashley (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may have come from a suspicious IP address, but I still do not see that reverting apparently good info makes sense. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't? We need to be on the same page with this. The purpose is to discourage this persistent vandal. By all means, use the information, but not as contributed by this serially block-evading vandal. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totem poles[edit]

w:Totem_pole#Totem_poles_of_note has a long list of totem pole collections. Should some be added here? Should we make an exception to our general policy in order to add a link to WP's list? Pashley (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal oddities[edit]

Many Indian reserves in both Canada & the US have casinos; I don't know about Mexico. Lots of Canadian reserves sell cheap cigarettes since the provincial goverments (and federal?) cannot legally apply their taxes there; I do not know about US or Mexico. My understanding is that peyote, while illegal for most Americans, is legal for the w:Native_American_Church. For all I know there might be some brothels on native land as well.

Should some of these be mentioned in this article? Pashley (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, but carefully. It's true on the other side that many Indian reservations prohibit alcohol, so that nearby white communities become destinations for Native Americans who are alcoholics or otherwise want a drink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No WP link?[edit]

I see someone has tagged this "no WP link". I would tag it with w:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas, not exactly the same but seems close enough. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beringians?[edit]

Early ancestors?, Alaska 11,550 years ago. Pashley (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A clickbait headline: Scientists discover DNA proving original Native Americans were White Pashley (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about people outside of a color-based social context as "white" is so stupid! That's a racist title on its face. Whiteness is a social construct. Do you think ancient Egyptians really gave a damn what someone's skin color was? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is highly suspect. The photo they use of a mummy plus a reconstructed face is of an adult woman, but what was found was the remains of a six week old girl. Pashley (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient footprints[edit]

I'd say not worth a place in the article, but others might disagree, so I'm putting it here.

Earliest Known Human Footprints in North America Found on Canadian Island, 13,000 BCE on w:Calvert Island (British Columbia). 12:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

23,000 years ago in Brazil?[edit]

Brazilian rock shelter proves humans inhabited Americas 23,000 years ago Pashley (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants[edit]

A map (no doubt incomplete) showing indigenous-run restaurants across Canada. I'd wager there are a bunch in the US & Mexico as well.

Could we add something like this here? Or add individual places in city & region articles? Pashley (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early trade[edit]

Find shows 4,000-year-old trade routes stretched from Carolinas to Great Lakes Pashley (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old city found[edit]

Archaeologists explore a rural field in Kansas, and a lost city emerges "home to perhaps 20,000 people between 1450 and 1700" Pashley (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus "indigenous" art[edit]

Knock-offs are everywhere. Of course it is hard to draw the line between "fair use" and theft, but should we say something about this?

Not just a problem in North America: I have seen w:dreamcatchers, apparently locally made, in the Philippines. Pashley (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Ralph Lauren knocking off indigenous patterns: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-63342715 Mrkstvns (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Clovis in Texas[edit]

Researchers Uncover 15,500-Year-Old Weapons, The Earliest Ever Found In North America Pashley (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a listing Indigenous cultures of North America#Buttermilk Creek Complex Pashley (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Taino people live[edit]

BBC article Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That deserves a place in the article, if we can be sure that those people are truly the indigenous people of the island. Thanks for sharing! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They say they are, and that's good enough for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. A question would be though, are they 100% indigenous or are they, for example, 65% Native and 35% Spanish? Not that it really matters for including in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've added the information about the Taino people. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Basically, I think the two elements that are sufficient for us are they say they are and no other indigenous people are saying they aren't. Very few of them would be "pure-bloods", because the Spanish methodically murdered virtually all Taino men. There's no reason for us to be obsessed with "pure-bloods"; it's all about culture and identity, and for example, if you check out the membership criteria for Native American tribes in the U.S., they're really not about that. No human beings, anyway, are pure-blooded anything but humans (and, therefore, ultimately, Africans). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see your point. People who are obsessed with being "pure-blooded" are obsessed with nonsense — you think about how many people groups conquered Britain, for example, and it's obvious that the people there are very mixed racially, in a way that doesn't show in DNA testing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the scope of the list[edit]

Thusap doesn't know what it wants to be. Archaeological dig sites? Museums of archeaology? Museums of contemporary indigenous culture? Performance spaces? etc. Above someone also suggested resturaunts . If it's all of the above, it's going to get too big. I am going to add a bunch more places I am familiar with, but I can forsee this needing to be split, either by country or region, or perhaps by sub-topic. If you go by country, I know Canada has started publishing a guide to indigenous tourism just in the last few years. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly (to me) links[edit]

Usually I am in favour of lots of wikilinks since they both help readers navigate & improve SEO. However, I think this article has gone overboard at Indigenous_cultures_of_North_America#Understand. We currently have:

We aren't an encyclopedia, Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals excludes "yellow pages" directories, & those links look unlikely to be followed by readers. I'd dump the lot & have just:

  • Subarctic — the entire Boreal forest region
  • Northwest Coast — from Alaska to northern California

Those are just examples; I'd trim most of the other list entries too. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would describe "Northwest Coast" as "the Pacific Coast from Alaska to northern California" for clarity. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These don't link to articles about Indigenous cultures. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30,000 years ago?[edit]

Humans may have reached the Americas 15,000 years earlier than previously thought. I do not think the article needs to mention this yet, but it seems worth tagging here. Pashley (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial cave discoveries suggest humans reached Americas much earlier than thought Pashley (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Triquet Island[edit]

This once said "before 12,000 BCE" but an IP editor made it "before 14,000 BCE" & claimed "the site is said in articles to be 14,000 BCE". w:Triquet Island has "between 13,613 and 14,086 years old", & I'm about to make our text "about 12,000 BCE" matching that.

Does anyone have citations for better numbers? If so, probably both our text & WP should be updated. Pashley (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20,000+ years ago in New Mexico[edit]

Earliest definitive evidence of people in Americas Pashley (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huge discovery. Our Bering Strait-related articles will be in need of adjustment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also 37,000 years ago, New Mexico. Pashley (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political discussions best avoided?[edit]

We say (in Respect) that political discussions are best avoided, because of mistrust between indigenous people and the white majority of the US and Canada. Is it respectful to come to see indigenous people or museums on them and try to ignore any political issues, or hastily get silent if any of them appears?

I would rather say that you should be extremely keen-eared. Ask questions if you feel it is appropriate, listen carefully and try not to defend the deeds of the whites or tell the indigenous what to do. But I don't have experience with them, so I could be wrong.

Should the advice be rewritten?

–LPfi (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a rewrite:
The issues are complex and sensitive; visitors should consider avoiding political discussions and, if they do get involved in one, do much more listening than talking.
Comments? Improvements? Pashley (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That might be the best advice. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

The list at Indigenous_cultures_of_North_America#See_also currently includes:

I want to delete those because I do not think they are directly relevant. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a broader issue: some of us want to build a web by linking related articles, such as here and by the topic list templates. That is a change in how we have been doing, with links only up and down the hierarchy, and to nearby destinations or otherwise clearly relevant other articles.
As this is a change that hasn't really been discussed, just boldly introduced, I think you could just delete them, but I also think we need to take that discussion, sooner or later, carefully framed to make it constructive.
–LPfi (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Removed. Pashley (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is from 2010 & shows a very incomplete monument.
Has anyone got, or can anyone find, a more recent photo to replace it? Pashley (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
w:Crazy Horse Memorial has some photos, at least one from 2020. –LPfi (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budding to Indigenous cultures of Mesoamerica or other articles?[edit]

This article has grown. We can consider to bud off parts of the material to other articles, with room for more detail. Possibly, we can divide the region at the Rio Grande, with an article on the indigenous cultures of Mesoamerica. Or shall we choose another categorization? /Yvwv (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose No need to split off anything. The article is 41K in length and WV has LOTS of articles much longer than that. As it is, this article hangs together fairly well, though it does have some big gaps? (Why don't I see much info about the PEOPLES? Like the Apache, the Inuit, the Huastec....for an article titled "Indigenous cultures" we sure seem to have ignored the indigenous cultures. Just sayin'... Mrkstvns (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a lot of diversity between various different Indigenous cultures of North America – the current article that exists is broad, overgeneralised and can come out as potentially ethnocentric. (cf Oceania's Indigenous cultures, where we have separate articles for Indigenous Australian culture, Maori culture and Kanak culture in New Caledonia, though the history of early migration into Oceania is very different and may not be comparable) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were split, I would not recommend an arbitrary geographic boundary, but rather a division based on the cultures themselves. Mesoamerican cultures did not automatically begin/end at the Rio Grande, but rather further south. The northernmost part of modern Mexico had tribes that were (or were more like) the tribes of the southwestern United States. For example, the Paquime site in Chihuahua is from a Mogollon culture that's similar to sites in New Mexico or Arizona. Other parts of northern Mexico were Chichimeca, who were not city builders and who were regarded as barbarians by Aztecs and other Mesoamerican civilizations. On the Gulf coast of Mexico, the northern boundary of what I'd consider Mesoamerica would be the fuzzy edge of La Huasteca, which would probably be at about Victoria Tamaulipas. If it were split, I'd also want to significantly expand the Mesoamerica article with sections for each of the major cultural groups. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I initially opposed this idea, I've been mulling it over and now see it has having a lot of opportunity for expansion and a tighter focus. If one of y'all want to take a stab at creating the new article, I'd be happy to edit it and expand where I can. Could be fun... Mrkstvns (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We don't have a fixed size limit for articles, but a category of markers can't be numbered above 99 (see Roman Empire for a workaround). When an article approaches 100 markers, budding could be considered. This article has nearly 70 markers. World War II in China (76 markers) was budded from Pacific War (82 markers), and can be seen as a case study. /Yvwv (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yvwv - Would you like to go ahead and bud off a Mesoamerica article? If you don't, I'll probably go ahead and do it whenever I get around to it. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listing details[edit]

We don't include listing details (address, phone, email, hours, prices) in topic articles. That information belongs in the destination article for the point of interest (which should be linked), so that we only update the information in one place. If someone decides to go to a decision site, we assume that they will check the destination article for more information. Ground Zero (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo[edit]

User:The dog2 has removed "Eskimo" commenting "Better to avoid controversial term." I think that is a mistake, since the term is still widely known.

True, in Canada not considered politically correct; it has mostly been replaced by Inuit (or rarely, the singular form Innuk) & most of the Inuit I know prefer that. However, one elderly lady uses "Eskimo", I think mostly because there are several languages up north & "Inuit" is correct in only one. I'm told "Eskimo" is still the usual term in Alaska,

Anyway, I think it needs to be mentioned. My guess is it will be the only term most visitors from outside the region (whether from Texas or Timbuktu) know. I do not think we need to go into detail about which term is acceptable where or the innuk/inuit singular/plural distinction.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, opinion on the term among Alaska Natives is quite mixed. See [3] and [4]. So it appears that a safer bet is to call them by their specific ethnic group, or just say "Alaska Native" if you're not sure. The dog2 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with The dog2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see it is dealt with at Indigenous_cultures_of_North_America#Respect so we likely do not need it in the lede. Pashley (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_cultures_of_North_America&oldid=4870036"