Talk:Métis

RFC Ontario
Should the lead list Ontario as mentioned in the article and sources in the lead?
 * Métis historic homeland extends into “much of the three prairie provinces, west into northern British Columbia, , north into the Northwest Territories, and south into Montana and North Dakota. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is Ontario not in the lead anymore?
Moxy's view...

We have a rise in Eastern metis self identifying, including in Eastern Ontario - Southern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada (that should be mentioned in the article but thats another debate) Thus we have a debate of who is really Metis/metis however Northwestern Ontario has always been part of the "Metis homeland narrative"  as stated by both sides of the debate (as seen by the sources above and below)  and as per R v Powley.

Sources about the debate:

This debate of the BIG M (socio-political definition) vs small m ( a racial category) is long running long before the current rise in Eastern metis self identifying, but has never rejected Northwestern Ontario claims of Metis homeland.

Survey

 * Support (RFC proposer) sources are clear. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per reasons and sourcing given by Moxy. SixulaTalk 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the sources, only a small part of Ontario, the Northwest corner, has actual Métis people. The others in Ontario are generally recent, self-indigenized groups and individuals, some of whom are quite problematic, and who have tried to use the 'pedia for self-promotion. Please read the discussion above:. This small region of Ontario is already addressed and sourced in the body of the article, but to put it in the lede, implying the entire province is of the same significance to this population as the others, is undue weight. We have longstanding consensus to keep it out. Usually it's IP vandals trying to add it. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup you re correct many IPs (or vandals in your words)  and others keep adding Ontario because its right there in the sources beside the  statement along with other regions  with small poipulations, thus the wording choice.  -  -  You sure your neutral on this topic? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CorbieVreccan and previous discussion mentioned above. The introduction of Ontario seems to be not only about the settlements mentioned in the RFC here but in the wider context of the nominator's past comments, to expand the definition of Métis to include the other groups mentioned in the above discussion. The fact that this RFC has been carefully tailored does not change that context in my opinion. --Dan Carkner (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryng to put it back in the article as it was for a decade and as per the sources. Not trying to add quebec of atlantic Canada to the ledd just restore the old norm and what sources say..any sources say otherwise?. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The extent to which it exists in Ontario is fine to mention later in the article in my opinion but that it gives it undue importance to have it in the introductory sentence. We as editors have the ability to decide how a topic is portrayed based on context, and again your past comments about "race murder" and citation of Seb Malette which you have studiously avoided mentioning here should be factored into this. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ontario is too large to insert it without some modifier stating how little of the province is included in traditional Métis territory. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I see multiple references to the inclusion of parts of Ontario in the sources shown above, which I believe to be reliable. DonFB (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given that the limited portion of Ontario where the Metis homeland exists, including the entire province is deceptive. There is also context missing in the RFC which Dan Carkner mentions above and this needs to be noted. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Individual Métis people live all over the place, but in the lede only the core of Métis homelands should be mentioned. Perhaps clarify this in the first sentence by changing "Indigenous peoples who inhabit..." to "Indigenous people whose core historical homelands are..." or something similiar. Yuchitown (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * This is a good clarification, I've been thinking of something along this line as well. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sections of Ontario have long been considered part of the Métis homelands. The MNC supports the inclusion of certain sections of Ontario through the MNO. The definition of the homeland is not, as much as we would like to be otherwise, a hard border that can be referred to with such certainty. Ontario should be included. It is also false to claim that all communities outside of a small area of the northwest of the province is merely recent self-indiginizing people. Sault Sainte Marie has a well-documented and longstanding "half-breed" community. However, I grant it is also challenging and problematic to include the entire province. It would be better if the lede could be nuanced to indicate the variability or some fuzziness of the border (and I stress this is not to include Quebec or Atlantic provinces.) Given the the role of MNC and the recognition of the MNO by the MNA and others I think it should be perfectly reasonable to take this course in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles can and do present a wider-scale view. It is not "false" to include Ontario.Smallison (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent paper on how some of the communities under the MNO heading are not in fact true Metis communities along with some excellent sources included in the body https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/mmf-report-update-october-2020-adese-leroux-otoole-.pdf Does this mean there are absolutely no authentic Metis communities in Ontario? No. But with the level of neo-Metis to tradition Metis it becomes highly problematic. I feel that it is important to address the legitimate communities in the body however if the intro were to mention Ontario or northwest Ontario with no disclaimer, it legitimizes the fetis groups. I do appreciate you not supporting any inclusion of Quebec or the maritimes (even though it is not up for debate). Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If the body of the article says that the Métis extend into Ontario, then the lede should reflect that in its list/series of provinces. MOS:LEAD Kerdooskis (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per sources that come from a variety of experts.104.192.232.40 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the main issue seems to be that the inclusion of "Ontario" in the lead would be misleading as in fact the part of the historical Métis homeland that overlaps with the contemporary borders of Ontario is relatively small, and the inclusion of the whole province would lead people to think that the homeland extends to Cornwall. The first sentence of the article has space for specifying that it's only part of Ontario, though-- in fact, it already does it for BC, NWT, and the Northern United States. Why not add "Ontario" to the list after "parts of...the Northern United States"?James Hyett (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Much has been made in the discussion below about Moxy's own presumed and known political positions. But looking just at the original RFC proposal, they did suggest including the verbiage "parts of Ontario". In no way does that wording suggest the inclusion of the entire province of Ontario, unless the current inclusion of "parts of British Columbia" is understood to mean that the Métis homeland extends to Haida Gwaii. I understand that Moxy has made political comments before that colour this particular RFC, but I don't understand how including the specific wording "parts of Ontario" gives undue weight, more than the other "parts of" that are listed in the present article. James Hyett (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many times I have to say this ...the racial comments are by scholars... I'm just regurgitating them... perhaps I've listed too many sources.. read me. That understood... all scholars agree there is a debate about new Métis identity...but they all agree there are historical Métis communities in western Ontario. For some odd reason how the sources  represent the groups are being ignored. Pretendian is a problem but it's not up to editors too misrepresent the sources by omission. I agree there may be a political agenda here as seen with edits of this nature. Exclusionism is not a good way for. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moxy - I did not mean to accuse you or anyone else of espousing any political position one way or the other. In fact, I'd like to get the conversation away from that, as most of the opposing editors are using ad hominem arguments that don't actually address the initial proposal, i.e. the inclusion of the phrase "east into parts of Ontario". any thoughts on my comments above? James Hyett (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - in addition to my comment above about the fallacious "undue weight" argument, I've just taken a look at the sources currently cited at the end of the statement that is in question and... they all refer to parts of Ontario as constituent to the Métis homeland. I don't know why this is up for debate. James Hyett (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's an overview source of the problem.... that some pick a side with over explaining...this resulting in the omission of groups of people in many articles dispite legal recognition because of the unfounded rejection of sources from certain groups like the MNO and Goverment of Ontario and Canada......as see Talk:Mattawa, Ontario . Adam Gaudry. “Communing with the Dead: The ‘New Métis,’ Métis Identity Appropriation, and the Displacement of Living Métis Culture.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 2018, pp. 162–90. JSTOR A side is being picked forming a huge bias across many articles. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
We should not be omiting a whole area because of a debate between to organizations - let alone picking a side that even says " Métis extends to parts of northwestern Ontario, including the regions around Kenora and Fort Frances". Metis in the residential school system of Ontario should not omitted because of a rise in self identifying in the eastern part of the province. Moxy - 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And the content you cite is already in the article. It just doesn't need to be used in a fashion that could be misinterpreted. Your "debate between to organizations" comment seems to be a reference to your advocacy for the Métis Nation of Ontario, and your accusations that some of us must work for a Métis org that has spoken out against them. As you have been advocating for the self-indigenized groups to be misrepresented, and written about as having the same status as the actual Métis people, I suspect your accusations are projection. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're free to have your own POV and to try to discredit me over the sources. Is there anyway you can rebut the sources - I gave you a week or to do so? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the initial discussion, Indigenous girl, and others, and I pointed out that you misrepresented the sources that are OK - they don't say what you seem to think they say - and that you suggested others that are not RS, including one by someone who looks to be also engaging in fraud. That's why I referred people to the previous discussion, instead of engaging in going round and round in what may be an attempt to simply wear editors out. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are all there for all to see. ..never said any were not reliable. Still not sure why an article by Denis Gagnon is so offensive to you...thus why i presented many more sources. Why not simply say " Northwestern Ontario " ..in my view its simply odd that omitting is your POV on this over accuracy or  regurgitating the sources. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not communicating clearly. Use complete sentences if you want editors here to be able to understand you. This is why it's essential to read what happened here and not your misrepresentations. For you to say we "never said any [sources you posted] were not reliable", is either WP:GASLIGHTING or you didn't read the discussion. Just a few of the Diffs: Not RS, Not beneficial, and the source doesn't say what you claimed it did. Either way, it's inappropriate and disruptive. The consensus was clear. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup the academic consensus is clear for all to see. Suggesting we don't use academic sourced is absurd. Lucky this isn't a problem normally. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope folks are reading the talk page and are actually reviewing content. OP provided Metis in Canada: History Identity Law and Politics page 6 as an argument for inclusion however the passage from Peterson reads- "thus, when contemporary scholars embrace terms such as the Ontario Metis Nation and conciously translate nineteenth-century English-language terms like Half-breeds or mixed-bloods from the documentary record into the politicized French-language term Metis (as in Metis Nation), they change the intended meanings of the original writers and of the terms themselves. Whatever the intent, the use of Metis in this context has implanted Metis communities, Metis identity, and Metis political conciousness into regions and times where they did not exist before." also included were sources by individuals who have been exposed as frauds https://buffalochronicle.com/2022/01/26/professors-identity-fraud-reveals-systemic-victimization-of-indigenous-people-in-academia/ such as
 * ·Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3
 * ·Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3
 * This is extremely problematic and to me appears to contribute to a bias toward groups that are not a part of the traditional Metis homeland.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Not all "academics" are supportive of Indigenous people and Indigenous self-determination. When someone is privileging the voices of academics who support settler self-indigenization, or who are self-indigenized themselves, this is a problem. The Métis are a recognized Indigenous people. Indigenous people define who Indigenous people are, not non-Indigenous people who happen to be in Academia. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moxy, that's not what I said. You're trolling now. Stop it. The consensus on talk, not your fabricated, misrepresented POV push of "academic consensus" based on colonial, problematic, non-RS "sources", many of which don't even mention the Métis peoples. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moxy, I will explain why Gagnon is problematic. Metis are a distinct Peoples with community connections, language, culture etc. He claims that folks from communities that include mine have a Metis history. That simply isn't true. During the historical period, there were folks who intermarried with white people and the children were still considered members of the community because we are matriarchal and matrilinial. If those children remained in community their children and their children's children and so forth would continue to remain members of community. If they chose to leave the community and assimilate then at some point their descendants were no longer recognized because they were no longer known by the community. Those who intermarried did not create a distinct community, They either stayed or they left. Those that stayed and continued to remain are still members of community. Those that did not are members of the dominant culture. An individual with a root ancestor from the 1600s is simply a member of the dominant culture who had an Indigenous ancestor from a very long time ago. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gagnon has no business redefining Indigeneity for living cultures. It's colonialism on his part. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Good talking about 2 sources of many  ,,::Page 367 .. But lets talk about .. Dr. Malette Moxy - 16:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What is there to talk about? He's harmful to the actual FNIM and Native people when he comes out with quotes like - "We fall into the somewhat overly romantic idea of ​​community. This is to think that indigenous experience and community norms are homogeneous." Community has always been central to identity. For him to swoop in and redefine what makes one indigenous is, well, very colonial.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup he talks about Quebec and the atlantic provinces but as seen he's like all the others in saying parts of Ontario are not in dispute. He does go on to say he thinks other areas should be a homeland but they aren't recognized. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, editors already responded to you about Malette in the initial discussion, on Dec 3: Problematic source. Which I reminded you of yesterday: Don't misrepresent the previous discussion. Here's the direct link to article about Malette, first posted here by Indigenous girl on talk on Dec 3: Professor’s identity fraud reveals systemic victimization of indigenous people in academia. These are the kinds of "sources" Moxy is promoting here. And demanding people discuss, after they've already been discussed, pretending we haven't been over this all already. This is disruptive, Moxy. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source pls. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you a bot? Sources for what specifically? Indigenous girl (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we not be adhering to the Wikipedia principles? Specifically WP:5? Neutral point of view? And presenting multiple points of view where necessary? MNC specifically states Métis in Ontario. As for the disputed communities there is recognition through other Mètis organization, and historically by some First Nations, the government of Ontario and a Federal MOU with MNO representing disputed and non disputed communities. Section35rightsholder (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:V we can't use the MNO website as the sole source for claims about themselves. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You know full well that the courts ruled they were never suspended and that the MNO has support from MNBC, the MNA, the MNS and is participating fully in the MNC and is why MMF chose to leave the MNC. . What your pushing here is a non-neutral evaluation of the situation... giving undue emphasis to the point of view of the Manitoba Metis Federation and the former president of the  MNC being sued by MNC,  over the  POV of  all others....even going so fat as to remove mention of the MNO in articles and templates. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling for RS sources is WP 101 and hardly controversial. It would go better for you if you don't attempt to tell editors what you think they do and don't "know full well". Your obsession with the imagined motives of editors here is inappropriate. You are once again casting aspersions and implying motives and agendas where there are none. Again, I think this is projection on your part. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 01:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Source above and facts are facts. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Should simply define the homeland as set out by the Metis themselves .....no word play or omissions. "In 2002, the Métis General Council defined the “historic Métis Nation Homeland” as the area of land in central North America including the 3 Prairie provinces, extending into Ontario, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and the northern United States, from Ohio to Montana." Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Historic is not the same as contemporary. This could cause eal confusion. At this point I'm personally willing to concede with including 'northwest Ontario' in order to stop the bickering and the additional work this whole issue is creating. While I'm not pleased with the casting of aspersions, the SPA activity, and general hostility displayed, the horse is beyond dead, it's splattered all over the pedia. It's a shame that this could not have been discussed in a more amicable manner. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "...historical homelands included parts of northwest Ontario"? Yuchitown (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "...historical homelands included parts of northwest Ontario" would be acceptable. But not this endless attempt to force people to restate their positions, hoping to wear us down. That's not how consensus works and it's not good wikiprocess, at all. I second what Indigenous girl said. The refusal to accept consensus, the WP:BADGERING and casting of WP:ASPERSIONS here has been really over the top, along with the weird edits by new WP:SPAs that are really not up to snuff, but that we have users wanting to edit war to preserve. Just a mess. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Metis
metis in the provinsis 2001:569:505B:400:6BC4:E416:9078:7B98 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Gender Roles
I am research the gender roles found in the Métis culture to add to this page on the Métis people. I am looking forward to collaborating on this page. Coultere3 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sex, Gender, and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Discourseparty (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

the term “Indian”
even if its a legal description in the US, if you're not using the legal term (which is of course racist), then using the term for Indigenous folx on Turtle Island is just being racist. It would be like using the "n" word to describe people of African descent, regardless of what racist legal terms you are comfortable deploying.

wikipedia seriously needs to have a conversation with itself and its community around decolonization and being occupiers of Indigenous territory (my lineage is not Indigenous, just to be clear) Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Indian is also a legal term in Canada. By the way I have heard that calling North America Turtle Island can be considered annoying and rude to Indigenous peoples outside of the northeastern part of the continent. It implies that only one particular group of Indigenous peoples count. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite being a legal term, it ought to be in brackets. Wikipedia has been pretty consistent in supporting structural white supremacy, and this is one of the ways it does that - by repeating racism, even if it's "legal" (btw, the legal system in canada is a racist import designed to benefit from the genocide of Indigenous peoples, so what's "legal" ought not to be a guiding definition).
 * As for what you've heard, that's not what my experience is showing me. It's more problematic to call people a dated, racist term. We can be corrected in person by Indigenous peoples we spend time in place with on the Turtle Island angle. Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)