Talk:Plains Indians/Archive 1

Bold Claim is Not Sourced
"Over years of surviving off the hunt, the metabolism of Plains Indians developed to allow them to survive for longer on less food. This was in response to sometimes long intervals between hunts. In times of plentiful food, Plains Indians took on a lot of extra weight to prepare for times without food. This adaptation saved tribes from starvation, but when Plains Indian reservations/reserves were introduced, the adaptation of carrying weight became a threat to their health."

--This is a very bold, scientific claim that has no source. Human beings cannot send adaptations from one generation to the next that quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydofoz (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was tempted to just remove it, but asked for a reference instead. If nothing else the reality was probably more complex than this suggests. Plains Indians like the Comanche could not survive on Buffalo hunting alone--they had to trade, or raid agricultural settlements for additional foods required for nutritional health. It's possible, maybe, that they developed an ability to go longer without food, but no people can simply "survive off the hunt". Pfly (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove this "bold claim" which sounds like nonsense to me. Smallchief (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Clean up needed
Can we get this article cleaned up? It doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry. 130.253.249.48 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. TerriersFan 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been tagged for clean-up Fortunia 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The extensive new material that was added may, or may not be accurate, but without sourcing it is impossible to know. Rather than try the impossible task of cleaning it up, I have carried out a deep revert to an earlier version that is, to some extent, sourced. It can go back if sourcing is provided. TerriersFan 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fortunia 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Plains culture
I have merged in Great Plains culture. However, only one paragraph has been imported as is since the rest of the material was contentious and wholly unsourced - this article has enough unsourced material as it is! TerriersFan 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.156.11 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2007 TROLL TROLL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.156.130 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article needs some attention.
I think the article could stand to be improved in quite a few ways.

Article is thoroughly disorganized and very basic.

Perhaps we could replace some of the many references to the "Plains Indians" in the context of this article with the more politically correct term "Native American". I know it could possibly add some extra bulk to the article, however, I am a "Plains Indian", and I would prefer the latter "term".

Another recommendation I would try in order to improve this article, would be to provide some more informative detail on some of the subjects here. Upon reading the article, I felt that the article was maybe written in a rush, there seems to be little to no detail in many areas, just a general idea is given regarding the topic. The topic in question here warrants a whole lot more attention to detail than is given, due particularly to the vast amount of information available on the history of these people.

I have listed a few things below that I feel could be mentioned in the body of his article to add more detail, that came to mind as I read through this article. Also, I haven't taken the liberty to put these little tidbits of info in the article myself because I don't have any sources to mention to verify the validity of them. These are just some things that I remember from reading about the "Plains Indians" myself.
 * Native American women 'traditionally' erected and disassembled the "tipis" when the tribes would decide to move their location.
 * In relation to culture, women were the "workhorses" in the Native American family, in comparison to the male being the "workhorse" in many families today. The women were the "workhorses" due to the fact that they did the majority of the work in regards to tasks that were necessary as a part of daily life. Culturally speaking, the Native American man was basically required to hunt to provide food and defend the tribe. Native American women on the other hand, would be tasked with preparing food that their husbands brought home as animal carcasses, meaning that the women would skin, chop, cook, and preserve the meat. Other tasks the women commonly did consist of making clothes for the family, preserving hides for use as tipi material, rugs and blankets. In summary, the Native American woman did basically everything except hunting, and fighting/defending the tribe.
 * In the article, a large portion of its subject matter relates to buffalo, I don't however see the reasons for the buffalo's demise described. The massive slaughter of buffalo for sport (shooting herds from trains) and other more sinister reasons (buffalo=Plains Indians lifeline) by the whites was a major factor in the eventual demise of the Plains Indians.

For now, that’s about all I can come up with. I hope someone can find a way to incorporate and or improve the ideas I’ve set out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.216.169 (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I think that this article should be labeled Plains Indians Because that is not what they really are. I think that it should be renamed to be Plains Native Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.113.194 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We run into trouble when we pick an encyclopedia name based on what an individual wants or even what a single country calls a people. After all, the plains extend into Canada and Mexico - should the article be changed into Plains First Nation? Similarly, sticking to whatever academia uses creates a western bias and lacks cultural sensitivity. There's probably no good solution on naming the article - perhaps whatever is commonly and traditionally used is the best approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.84.124 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

History
I would like to see some information on the history of peoples of this region. The first couple paragraphs mention that the cultures described were at their height starting in 1750's. I have heard from others that at least several of the major nations came from the Eastern Woodlands, being pushed into the west by invading Europeans, and that prior to that time, the ways of life of the Great Plains were very much different. 69.95.237.11 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too would be interested in more historical info on how their way of life was like in say the year 100ad verses 1600ad, just about the time of first European contact. Did they live almost the same for over 1000 years, before the Horse came along?
 * No culture stays the same for 1000 years, but it is difficult to know how things changed because most indigenous cultures lacked any kind of written language. Archeology tells us some things, but there are a lot of gaps. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Move (April 2008)
I request a move to Plains Native Americans.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we title with the commonly used name, see WP:NC, and I see no evidence that 'Plains Native Americans' is generally used. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose move There's nothing ambiguous about "Plains Indians". Are there any other groups called "Plains Indians" anywhere else in the world? We should follow conventional usage. Google scholar finds 894 articles for "Plains Indians" since 2005 (I did a recent search in case usage is changing), but only 24 for "Plains Native Americans". Similarly it's 725/28 since 2005 in Google Books, and 704/13 in Google News. Mangostar (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Plains Indians, despite its clearly fallacious derivation, is far and away the most commonly used name for this group of peoples.   OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Terriers. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2008)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a move to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains would be more specific, and would match existing articles Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as per TheMightyQuill.Skookum1 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name and is apparently sometimes used in Canada: . Rmhermen (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term is sometimes still used in Canada in libraries, because changing categorization is problematic, but is generally considered quite offensive in Canada. You won't find it used in the media or in academic sources. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We now know that they are not even indigenous - they just got there before the Europeans did. Evidently everyone in the world can be traced back to East Africa 60,000 years ago, and found multiple routes to the "New World". Plains Indians is a good name for the topic and is widely used. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I fail to see how it is 'more specific'. I doubt any users will think 'Plains Indians' refers to persons of the subcontinent and not Native Americans. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, just to be clear, it doesn't refer just to Native Americans, but to Indigenous peoples in Canada and Mexico as well. In addition, a "plain" is a geographical feature that may occur in other places in North America besides the "Great Plains." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Use of bison
This is rubbish. The part about how the plains indians used the bison/buffalo is totally and utterly wrong. The Plains Indians used every part of the bison, meat of course for eating,

skins: for clothing, tipis moccasin tops cradles, winter obes bedding breechclouts shirts leggins lance covers belts dresses pipe bags pouches paint bags pouches dolls coup flag covers quivers                                                                         TROLL,TROLL tipi covers gun cases

THE HAIR FOR: saddle pad filler pillows rope ornaments halters medicine balls

THE TAIL FOR: medicine switch fly brush lodge exterior decorations whips

HOOF AND FEET FOR: glue rattles

THE HORNS FOR: cups fire carriers powder horn spoons ladles headdresses signals toys

RAWHIDE FOR: containers clothing headdress food medicine bags shields buckets moccasin soles rattles drums drumsticks splints cinches ropes belts bullets pouches saddles horse masks lance cases armbands quirts bull boats knife cases stirrups thongs horse ornament

This is how the Plains INdians used the buffalo.

The white settlers that travelled across America killed the buffalo as sport, which lead to the decrease in Buffalo/Bison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.16.189 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "INDIAN"
More than a politically incorrect term, the usage of this word is geographically incorrect, as Amerigo Vespucci realized 500 years ago. --Asierra (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, 'Plains Indians' is the generally accepted terminology. TerriersFan (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

However
Just because Plains Indian is the more commonly used term, does that really mean it's the term we should be using?

After all, Native American gives a much more accurate representation of the 'Plains Indian' people than the aforementioned term. It might, therefore be a good move to change the title of this page to a more accurate, less stereotypical, term. Taizan (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Like what? "Plains Indians" is the term used to describe the cultures that arose on the Great Plains involving horses, buffalo hunting, and so on. Of course it is a broad, generalized category term, which like all such terms can be used in misleading or stereotyped ways. But isn't that a matter of usage, not something about the term itself? It seems accurate enough. "Plains" simply refers to the Great Plains. "Indian" is widely used and accepted, although not with some controversy. But there is no general agreement on terminology at that level; see Native American name controversy. In any case, "Plains Indians" is the normal term. I can't even think of an alternative name with the same basic meaning. Pfly (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunting in the Plains
I was hoping to find more information on hunting before the introduction of the horse, but wanted to comment on the supposed adaptation to living off large game. Besides having no citations, it's not even clear what change could have taken place. Since not everyone practiced agriculture, and even that was fairly recent compared to the majority of human existence (hunter-gatherer), this change seems more like a comparison of the effects of a diet brought from an heavily agricultural society than a genetic difference.

The fact that health deteriorated in reservations is not proof of any change. From what I gather, they were forced to live mainly off of flour and other starchy foods like potatoes and beans.

Maybe that bit could be simplified until someone finds more information? Zebadiahjones (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultivation of Grasslands
I've recently come across some articles on the cultivation of grasslands by native peoples, and they briefly mention this happening in the Great Plains. Perhaps some of this agricultural history would be relevent since this article includes hunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.84.124 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hair drop


The article Hair drop has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references did not find support for the contents of this artilce as written, fails WP:V and WPN

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. That article's four years old but I've never stumbled across it before. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Proposing move
Should this be moved to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains in keeping with other articles about tribes of North American cultural regions? -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Requested move (2010)

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus, not moved. Non-admin closure D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  07:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Plains Indians → Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains — In keeping with other articles about indigenous peoples of a certain North American cultural area; also more precise name Uyvsdi (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Southeastern tribes → Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands
 * Indigenous peoples in Mexico → Indigenous peoples of Mexico
 * Support. Consistent with other similar articles.  jsfouche  &#9789;&#9790;   talk  11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see your point -- but I like the traditional name: "Plains Indians." I'm not sure what "indigenous people" are.  How long do you have to live somewhere in order to be considered indigenous?  I would also prefer "Southeasten Indians" and "Mexican Indians"  to "Indigenous whatever."  Why not just call them Indians -- as they have been called for 500 years?  It's a name that has historical resonance. Smallchief 12:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm left speechless, absolutely speechless.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Powers T 14:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The "Plains Indians" terminology is a bit out-dated and imprecise compared with the proposed terminology. The Celestial City (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Definitely "Indian" is a common term in the US, and I don't buy the idea that it's un-PC because most Indians here call ourselves as such; however, this article is on the same scale as the other articles about cultural regions in North America, and several ethnic groups (Yup'ik, Inuit, Iñupiat, Aleuts, Métis, etc. in NA) are not Indians. By broadening the term to "indigenous peoples" you can include all Native peoples of the Americas. Additionally, the Plains include Canada, where "First Nations" is the most common name, not "Indians." There are Métis peoples from the Plains as well. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Having thought about the situation again, and on the basis of your reasoning, I am retracting my support. The Celestial City (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest and Indigenous people of the Americas and Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau. Granted, I created that last one to match the other two; but I think it's also a title-model used by other culture-areas.  "Indians" remains common in popular parlance, even among Indians, but it's not "acceptable" in print anymore.  BTW "Aboriginal" in Canada is a legal definition incorporating First Nations, Metis, and Inuit but it has other associations in global English (namely in Australia) that rule out its use in Wikipedia, other than for Canada-specific articles in that context.Skookum1 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment see rationale on Category:Indigenous peoples of North America and note contents, i.e. the names of the subcategories; there are two remaining that use "tribes" but I note User:jsfouche has above called for them to move to the "indigenous peoples" format, which I support, and which again harmonizes with Canadian usage.Skookum1 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indigenous peoples is an impovement over Indian. At least in Canada, there has been a long movement away from the term Indian. Only a note for Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains, this would effectively include Metis in the scope. I see no problem with that but wanted to bring it too the attention of others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:TITLE calls for titles to adhere to the five naming criteria as best as possible.  The current title beats the proposed title on Naturalness and Conciseness hands down.  It also meets Precision ("but only as precise as is necessary") better.  Recognizability is a wash.  The proposed title only has one of the five criteria, Consistency (with the pattern followed by titles in similar articles) in its favor.  Clearly the current concise, natural, recognizable and precise title is better than the cumbersome, unnatural and "more precise than necessary" but consistent-with-similar-articles title being proposed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Concise yes. Rather offensive in at least one country involved.. you betcha. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In which country and to whom is "Plains Indians" offensive? This is not mentioned in the article.  —   AjaxSmack   23:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Canada, where the Kainai Nation, Northern Peigan, Siksika, Tsuu T’ina, Nakoda, and Assiniboine, and Dakota peoples live. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * It should probably be added to the article with a citation then. —   AjaxSmack   01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned at the top of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment @Born2cycle: the "naturalness" you speak of is highly subjective, and also archaic, given the times and also, ahem, the notable contributions of members of NorthAmNative to naming conventions re North America's peoples, and by that I mean actual "Indians". Native American name controversy and its talkpage contain a host of stuff on this.  "Indigenous peoples" as an article-title series and category-series was evolved through discussion and collaboration with actual First Nations and Native American people; each word - indigenous, aboriginal, native, Indian - has its own tone and in some cases political-movement association; "Indian" is still used by many individuals and groups of that origin in Canada (Native Indian Brotherhood, Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and many more, and also Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, otherwise known as DIA (Dept of Indian Affairs).  But as a general and de-politicized, "neutralized" term, so as to not offend, "indigenous" and "aboriginal" are the preferred usage in Canada; but aboriginal is also capital-A a legal definition in Canada.  "Naturalness" may seem fine to an American used to ordinary American speech, but I think if you started asking Wikipedians of, say, Comanche or Skwxwu7mesh or Cherokee origin, or those of any of the Plains peoples in fact, there'd be some issue with "Plains Indians" as a title, and having white people tell them that's the right term for them....well, that just won't wash, in fact (and one of them might trot out a UN Declaration calling for their inclusion as sources/inputters in anything written about them).  The proper usage is to call them by what nation they're from - "he's a Peigan", "he was a Lakota medicine man".  i.e. the proper/preferred usage is specificity, as in specifying Irish or Greek or Pomeranian, instead of "European"  The next preferred is "indigenous" or "aboriginal", and even "native" is less volatile than "Indian".  "Naturalness" to one ear, and one set of experiences and one background, is anhything but natural to another.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, "naturalness" is not as subjective as you seem to think. It's defined at WP:TITLE: "titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article".  Considering the relatively small population of Canada and the relatively small proportion of Plains Indians that live there vs. the United States, I think it's quite obvious that the term readers are most likely to look for in order to find this article is "Plains Indians", not "Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains".  That's what "naturalness" is about. We are not supposed to name articles in accordance with how editors think the subject "should" be referred to.  We are supposed to reflect how the subject is actually referred to.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "are "mostlikely" to look for....." - by Americans. the issue here is one of global English, not English as it is used by Americans.  And underscoring that, as in my opus below which AjaxSmack summarily dismissed as "original research", the use of "indigenous" in Wikipedia has been evolved by contributions by actual Native Americans and First Nations people, i.e. wiki editors of those origins.  I'm sorry I don't have time to mind Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but the debates are out there; suffice to say there's a good reason that project is named what it is, and that e.g. Plateau Indians was moved to Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau also for good reason.  The usefulness of the one title, and also its "cultural accpetability" vs. the controversial nature of the other (the other being "Plains Indians") is what's at stake here; citing that it's "natural" in American English alone isn't good enough, especially when those from the first peoples themselves don't like it (and have a good read on Native American name controversy and its talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did dismiss it as original research because it is (so far) totally unsourced. That "Wikipedia has been evolved by contributions" of editors doesn't meet the smell test.  Editors shouldn't decide usage.  Base it on verifiable sources, i.e. prove it.  —   AjaxSmack   20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Editors didn't decide usage" is a bit oxymoronic/redundant don't you think?? Anyway, I know User:Phaedriel has retired and won't answer even if we ask her via email, there's a few other veteran NorthAmNative editors kicking around, maybe I can find someone who remembers where the original debates were, as I think they were part of an article-naming decision.  Similarly, user:OldManRivers, who's Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw, is of more recent vintage but also retired (he's busy war-canoeing and teaching his language), but in his edits and created article he scrupulously advocated the use of "indigenous" as the "least offensive/loaded".  I stand by my comment that "Plains Indians" is a USPOV usage and it doesn't matter if they're "mostly not in Canada".  The Plains peoples are the largest contingent of First Nations populations in the Prairie Provinces, even without including hte Woodland Cree, and a large contingent of the overall Canadian aboriginal population.  Just because they're lesser in scale (allegedly) than their US counterparts doesn't mean they're any less significant.Skookum1 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. —   AjaxSmack   20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - A per some of the comments above I feel that plains indians is reflective of the current terminology. I also agree it should match the other like articles. --Kumioko (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I've opposed this in the past, but the argument this time makes better sense. I do have some comments and questions though. First, the term "Plains Indians" is very common. A search on the web and Google Books turned up large numbers of examples within the last decade--many from Canadian sources too. In contrast, the term "Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains" is not common at all. I do see the logic of naming a Wikipedia article this way, but it would be exceedingly clunky to rewrite the main text replacing the many "Plains Indian" words with "Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains". That won't work! Perhaps the page can describe in the lead the common use of "Plains Indians" (perhaps saying that this term will be used in the article's text to some extent), along with comments about the term "Plains Indians" being offensive in Canada. On that topic, I've often heard that the term "Indian" is considered offensive in Canada, and I don't disbelieve it, but it occurred to me that I don't think I have been pointed to a good reference source saying as much. If this page is to be renamed, yet retain at least some usage of "Plains Indians" (and I have trouble seeing how it couldn't, nor do I think it should abandon the term completely), then it would be good to explain why "indigenous peoples" is preferable, at least for the title and a general, multinational, inclusive term. To do this well it would help to cite references explaining how and even why the term "Indian" is offensive in Canada--despite the continued use of it in various ways. And! All of this ought to be done tersely. In short, I support this name change, but would like the terminology issues explained and the main text not completely stripped of the term "Plains Indians". Pfly (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can pull up some information as to when it began falling out of use in Canada. Aboriginal Place Names (July 2001) says the 1970's. The Canadian National Indian Brotherhood changed their name to Assembly of First Nations back in 1982. The naming of the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is a complicated Canadian constitutional issue (see Indian:). If it was as simple as amending an act of parliament it would have happened long ago. This being said, I am having some difficulty finding reliable sources that directly answer "Why". Walking a tightrope: aboriginal people and their representations (chapter 2) or The imaginary Indian: the image of the Indian in Canadian culture (chapter 10) seems to cover some of the topic, but in am more indirect way. You don't want to use the term "Indian" in Canada (in ref. to natives), it would not go over well. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links. I admit I have not researched the question myself beyond some quick simple searches. Reading those links makes me want to respond with some thoughts, but it would be quite tangential here. I was going to post to your talk page, but it is late and I ran out of energy before I could write something coherent. In short, my reaction to those links was thinking the history and current situation on the topic in Canada is even more complex than I had thought. The INAC "Terminology" page you linked had a link on it that seemed promising: a document titled Words First: An Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. But the link was broken (it gave a table of contents with links, but those links were broken). However, I found it elsewhere: Words First An Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. A couple quotes: "American Indian" is a commonly used term in the United States [...] The term is not popular in Canada. That is quite clear. I also found the various points on the necessity of using the term "Indian" for legal reasons informative.


 * One last comment. It is curious how Indian/First Nation activists concerned about this topic have taken different courses either side of the border--rejecting "Indian" in Canada, more or less it seems, while mostly embracing it in the US. Just the other day I was reading about a speech Russell Means gave in 2003. He was lamenting the "fragmentation of Americans" into "a nation of hyphens": Asian-American, African-American, etc. Then said the term "American Indian" shows that indigenous people in the US understand the danger of ethnic fragmentation: "We put 'American' before our ethnicity [...] We know what it is to be an American, and that's why we are so proud to put it before our ethnicity [...] Putting your ethnicity first, that's where your mind goes and where your heart goes [...] You have to put American first." Excuse my comments unrelated to moving this page name. I'm just amazed how complicated this topic is. Even within the US there's a strange contradiction and confusion, even paradox between being Indian, with all the claims of sovereignty and separateness from the US, and being a US citizen, with all the patriotism possible. Adding another layer of contradiction/paradox/whatever, he gave this speech at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument—perhaps the most famous specific site associated with Plains Indians, and one where the mixed pride in defeating the US Army and serving in it are regularly displayed; coup stick in hand, purple hearts on chest. Pfly (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:OR (no original research). Although in Canada use of "Indian" appears to be outdated, "indigenous" appears a poor subsititute.  A reference used in the intro of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, "Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal and Metis", states: "The term [indigenous] is rarely used, but when it is, it usually refers to aboriginal people internationally."  In the US, where most Plains Indians live, the term "Indian" still appears to be widely used while "indigenous" does not.  Although the current title may not be ideal, Wikipedia should not substitute its own interpretation of what the correct term should be.  As far as "Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands", there's no source given for this usage at all.  —   AjaxSmack   16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd hear any complaints from myself, or anyone else for the Canadian side, by employing "indigenous" particularly when "Indian" is the alternative. On the Canadian side, "aboriginal" or "First Nations" would be the preference but given neither term is widely employed in the United States "indigenous" seems like a good compromise. Indigenous at least has the benefit of not being a slur in Canada. You see indigenous used a lot more often now, particularly in relation to various land claims and asserting traditional rights. It's also the go to international standard of the UN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: AjaxSmack's comments. The quote from that "Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal and Metis" document has some context altering the scope. The quote ought to read: "The term [indigenous] is rarely used in the Department.... "The Department" being Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), part of the federal government. From what I can tell INAC is careful about using terminology and tends to stick with terms that have been defined in Canadian law, and it seems that both Indian and Aboriginal have clear definitions in Canadian law, while indigenous does not. In other words, this quote is about usage within INAC, not Canada in general, I think. Just felt that worth pointing out. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You are quite right, pfly, about that being how INAC uses language, vs how ordinary Canadians (including aboriginal Canadians) use the various words; (NB "Aboriginal" is capitalized only in its arch-legal contexts, as opposed to lower-case "a" which is more casually adjectival). Common usage has to be trumped here by sensitivities, and despite ongoing official and organizational usage "Indian" is offensive to some on both sides of the border.  The point with "indigenous" is it's neutral in tone, and also widely acceptable with First Nations and Native American writing, and is also the global format e.g. Category:Indigenous peoples.  Everyone please take note of the name of the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and understand the debate over the use of the term "indigenous" has already been gone over by indigenous editors.  A COI decision, perhaps, and to this day I'm uncomfortable with continent-wide category hierarchies which have "Native American" at the top; between political sensitivities on the one hand and the lack of a binational standard in terminology, "indigenous" is what's "easiest".  NB though neither is still active User:OldManRivers and very notably User:Phaedriel had well-voiced positions on why "indigenous" is wiki-preferable.  That's why Indigenous peoples of the Eastern Woodlands and Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and so on are titled the way they are: input by indigenous editors....A compromise I might settle for might be Plains peoples, which is certainly heard in Canada or seen in print....partly because Canadian newspapers and publishers avoid "Indian" EXCEPT when it's in the name of an organization or in a quote.  Indigenous as a  word is usually seen attached to "culture" and "rights", while all of aboriginal, Native and Indian are heard, at least as much as the modernesque use of "First Nations person" or "he/she is First Nations".  NB the presence of American Indian Wars (instead of "Indian Wars"), where there was a conflict between the most common usage/meaning of the phrase "indian Wars" vs the notion of wars between different groups of Indians, or with other powers than the US - which is why there's Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America, to separate the non-US wars.  NB the latter is the newer of the two articles, and incorporates the "wiki-standard" use of "indigenous" as has been the model within WP:Indigenous peoples of North America (which has been notified, though I see few participants here).Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All this discussion is very interesting but can we get some actual citations of usage? Wikipedia article titles should not be determined by three of four editors sitting around cooking up "compromises".  Everything I've seen in this entire request discussion seems to be original research by a small group of editors about usage in Canada.  Most Plains Indians are not even in Canada and the other request, that of a move of Southeastern tribes → Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands, hasn't been discussed at all and there is zero mention of actual use of the term proposed.  —   AjaxSmack   18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any data on population breakdown? I haven't seen any, so I was wondering how you reached said conclusion? The population in Canada are likely somewhere around 200K (educated guess based on the published population numbers of three provinces involved) and that does not include Metis. "Plains Indians" is not a term used in Canada. "Plains Aboriginal" or "aboriginal peoples of the plains" are both term groupings employed in Canada. Since the term aboriginal is not employed in the US, what's wrong with employing a descriptive title. I have no comment on  Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands other than Southeastern tribes is not nearly specific enough. In the very least a country prefix (Southeastern United States tribes) is necessary if it's decided not to clarify the regional area. I still see  Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands as being superior if for no other reason than consistency. It's the format already employed for indigenous regional groupings on Wikipedia, United States included (as already noted by Skookum1). --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as per above pros. Last of the articles to be moved...whats taking so long. As for Indigenous used in Canada..I work for Indigenous affairs international that is based and founded in Ottawa. Moxy (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:OR (no original research). Flamarande (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not OR, it's an adjustment to a descriptive title, conforming to an established pattern for other ethno-linguistic groupings on the same continent. And "Plains Indians" is "most common" only in an archaic sense, and from USPOV, it's not acceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is "Plains Indians" not acceptable from USPOV or most "common only in an archaic sense?" Search Amazon and you'll find dozens of recent books with "Plains Indians" in the title. You won't find many titled "Indigenous People of the Plains."  Plains Indians is descriptive; it's historical; and it's commonly used. Smallchief 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC) 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Insisting that it's the most common usage is what's USPOV; it's not acceptable by CanPOV, where if anything, at a simple level, "Plains peoples" would now be used. And I don't see teh point in looking through google for something like this, especially when native editors have already discussed the naming issue at length, which is why WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is called what it is (not "WikiProject Indians").Skookum1 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Google, If you google "Indigenous People of the Plains" four of the first five entries refer you to people in Nepal and Bangldesh. Clarity, please. Simplicity, please. Why change a perfectly good, clear title -- one that has positive connotations (at least in the US) for something that is mushy, confusing, and unnecessary.
 * Whoever said that that was the suggested/desired title? "Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains" is decidedly specific, with "Great Plains" also being the formal name of a geographic unit.  Not just any plains.Skookum1 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of the opponents of the name change have been saying it's not sourceable, but I just googled for the phrase, subtracting all articles which mention Wikipedia, and there's 52,000 of them, and from academic papers, too. It's not like the phrase "Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains" is not current, or not in use.  Please stop pretending that's not the case.Skookum1 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But I get 2,260,000 hits googling "Plains Indians" subtracting Wikipedia.Smallchief00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on the Google search result for "indigenous peoples of the Great Plains". If you keep hitting Next, "there actually are only 34 of them". --Kusunose 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. - Consistent with other similar articles-categories, clarifies the Plains Indians are not a single tribe but a geographic region with many.--- Look2See1  t a l k →  06:13, 20 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rebuttal to consensus "no decision, no move"
Well, this decision (no decision) just goes to show you the power of myopia over the process of "consensus". This is not a consensus-oriented issue, this is correctness-oriented and sensitivity-oriented issue, and one where "most common usage" is not acceptable to the people(s) affected. There's a good reason (and arrived at after much debate and CONSENSUS) why WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is called what it is and not WP:WikiProject Indians. A style guide or an amended sub-guide to MOS for usages in reference to indigenous peoples should be come up with eventually; allowing people with their noses stuck in the past to dictate "consensus" by insisting "our way is the right way" when in fact it's not....well, taht principle would play hell with China-related articles, let me put it that way.Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I would much rather be a "Plains Indian" than an "indigenous person." I like the title "Plains Indians" and consistency is less important than an accessible, historically resonant, evocative name.  We want an encyclopedia people will read -- and I'm a lot more likely to read an article called "Plains Indians" than I am one entitled "indigenous people." Smallchief 21:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given the result that the article is titled in USian English, including that of a USian Plains Indian, apparently, what do we do with the Peigan and Assiniboine and Tsuu T'ina et al. The usage in Canada, if in any similar form, is "Plains peoples".  Ironically, while on the one hand we have one or more aboriginal participants involved in the recent reqmove who support "Plains Indians", and are apparently from the US, while the term "indigenous" was hammered together by aboriginal editors after much debate; you can't win for losing I guess; see Native American name controversy also and note the not-dissimilar reqmove at Talk:Slavery among Native Americans in the United States.  I'm not aboriginal, but was persuaded to the "indigenous" wording by aboriginal editors and conventions; I have been defending it because of my udnerstanding of the complexity of the issues in using terms such as the USian one here, or Native American as an extra-USian label for people not in the US (note, that article was originally entitled, I think, Aboriginal slavery in North America or "in the United States" maybe, given its framework now.  @Smallchief, "most comfortable usage to you" and what is most common where you are isn't necesarily a global term; or even a continental one.  I do know that Canadian First Nations writers and governments tend to avoid the use of the term "Indian" and prefer "indigenous" and "aboriginal" and "First Nations" as adjectives.  If this article is to include the "Plains Indians" on the Canadian side of teh border, then it should so do in language also used/acceptable in Canada, not just the "expected norm" of popular usage/historical convention in the US.  the core issue here is that, unless Canadian Plains peoples are excluded, the article includes Canada and should concede to Canadian linguistic conventions; including the antique/POV-nes of the term "Indian", unless used in an organization name.  "Plains peoples" is the simple form; "indigenous peoples of the Great Plains" was meant partly to be more formal/academic-sounding but also to harmonize with other existing aboriginal-series article titles, and with the established convention of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.  What I see is popular use winning the debate by a show of hands, and the arguments against it being outvoted, even though having more substance and reasoned logic/sensitivity.  WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but all too often it behaves like one....Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Map is USPOV
The map ends at the top of the original Louisiana Territory model, as if the peoples of the Plains do, too, that's clearly not the case; and Apache etc extend into Mexico (unless they're considered Southwest, I'm not sure)....the map just strikes me as one of those USPOV the-world-stops-at-the-edge-of-the-United States things....Skookum1 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the map is fairly accurate in depicting the territory in which the Plains Indians lived. It might be better if it showed the territory of the Plains Indians extending a bit further north in Canada. And perhaps not quite as far south into Mexico.  Smallchief 01:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tribes and cultural regions
Cultural regions are not set in stone, but I just removed two mentions of Shoshone, since they are typically considered to be indigenous peoples of the Great Basin (see "Great Basin Indian Tribes and Languages" or Sturtevant, ed 602. I removed one mention of the Nez Perce, as they are typically regarded as one of the indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau (see Pitzker 380 or Walker et al 14). -04:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The Cycle of Nature
The fascination about these Native American nations is how they can survive the harshest weather throughout thousands of years. Even before the horse was introduced to the North American plains, these tribes have survived through lethal hail, sleet, harsh blizzards, droughts, disease, dust storms, and even tornadoes for thousands of years explaining about the mythical stories of the great winds for thousands of generations upon generations since man started hunting mammoths and utilizing agriculture. Reports of them go from sheltering near cliffs, ditches near the rivers or ponds, or even man made underground holes from where they learn from prairie dogs are some of the preparations they prepared in any case of severe storms or nearby tornadoes and passed down the method to thousands of generations upon many centuries to come. These people are a valuable contribution to the status of knowledge in the constellations of astronomy, and in any case of strategy, thus I look forward to the expansion of this article and hopefully become nominated to featured article.--GoShow (...............) 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Book advertisement for Carlson?
In the research section of this article is what may be an advertisement for The Plains Indians (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press) by Paul H. Carlson.

Carlson's book may well be excellent -- but there are many excellent books about the Plains Indians. I have no objecting to listing it in the bibliography, or using it as a reference, but does it merit being the only book singled out for praise in the text of the article? I would propose deleting this paragraph. Smallchief (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The para deleted. Smallchief (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Warfare
there is nothing here about the Plains Indian warfare, especially the prehistoric era, pre-Horse and pre-Gun, and historic: influx of horses, metal weapons and gun and consequently their role in the revolutionary changes on the Great Plains between 1630s and 1800s. Also there is nothing here about raiding - women, and later horses, and coup counting and so called Plains Indian chivalry. Nothing about social order and military societies, both historic and prehistoric, and nothing about the destruction of Plains Indians historic equestrian culture by the governments of US and Canada. Also article is wrong on the emphasis on the nomadic tribes, as the nomadic tribes were only a brief moment with the exception for the various bands of the Plains Apache, the true nomads of the Great Plains, during the entire length of the historic period. The true Plains Indians were the Apachean, Caddoan and Siuan groups, most of the tribes listed in the beginning of this article were 18th century arrivals on the Great Plains. Also missing are the Mescalero and Jicarilla Apaches, both remnants of the Plains Apache groups, and the Shoshone. Also missing is the influence of the historic equestrian Plains Indian culture on the tribes of the Great Basin and the late refugees from the Removal period (1830s and on) eg Shawnee, Delaware, Cherokee etc. Also missing are the tribal groups that were the original inhabitants of the southern prairies who were wiped out by disease and Spanish 17th century warfare, and the powerful Osages etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Folklore and Chivalry
At DarioTW: That is a tremendous source sample I am looking forward about the idea the folklore of Native American warrior who became legends throughout the centuries. The Song of Hiawatha coming from the Onondaga, in the 16th century, Shoshone and Comanche, who started nations from about 3,000 B.C.E.( or possibly earlier to around 5,000 B.C.E.), also reports legendary folkore of two warrior hunters, in   The Legend of Manitous Springs , and their chivalrous deed to deal with each other under The Great Spirit Manitou. Many legends chivalrous legends such as the  Chief Mountain  are still out there and hoping to find some sources of warriors and chivalrous deeds back from 4,000 B.C.E. and later on translated to the Modern Age.--GoShow (...............) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Grounds
Although, lost through some generations, there are sources of major ancient battlegrounds as far as 4,000 B.C.E. which could have been used if reliable and the aftermath of the large battles, and the way they used those battlegrounds and turned them into sacred burial sites, but also designed them to become stone navigational hot spots to other sacred sites. --All the users (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC) http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the users (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Or you can find sources and add them to the site for Burial rituals. --Checkmeleon (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources
Nations of the Americas' religion, mythology and folklore are covered extensively at this site. Good sources from sacred texts is greatly informational for references to the article.--209.107.228.75 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Past move proposals
I just created an archive, but in case anyone wants to make another move proposal, here are the past proposals: -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Move to Plains Native Americans (April 2008)
 * Move to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains (April 2008)
 * Move to Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains (November 2010).

A new source
In Cities of Tipis?, Michael E. Smith states that Plains circular tipis camps weren't cities but a part of the Wide Urban World. The reasons of his analysis could be interesting for this article.

El Comandante (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)