Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 1

New policy of ''If you know an answer, give only a very limited answer on this page. Just post a link to the Wikipedia article that contains the answer (although you might have to supply a few missing details, relevant to the specific question, here on this page)'' decided on by mike dill and LMS

Would it be reasonable to (as a policy) delete answers after a period of three months? I don't see that an archive of past questions serves much purpose... -Martin


 * As long as we store all previous versions of a page deleting old stuff is no big deal. Just make sure to have it in the changelog, and possibly also a deletion log on the page itself, like on my talk page. --Eloquence


 * Answers should not be given here -- they should be integrated into the body of Wikipedia, either in a new article or into existing ones. IMO, the answerer should give a link. The person who posed the question should delete the question & the link when they see it. -- Tarquin 23:54 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hm. There's also the matter of questions that linger for months without answers, and people who don't come back to read the answer. Delete the latter after 3 months -- as for the former, not sure. We need to keep this page reasonably clean, but if they're valid questions we shouldn't delete them. Create an archive of "Wikipedia Wants To Know..." maybe -- Tarquin 00:10 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

h2g2 has an "ask h2g2" page - maybe this should be "ask Wikipedia"? Martin


 * Does "Ask h2g2" function both technically (like the Pump) and informationally (like the Desk)? Because its name seems to suggest both. --Menchi 23:23 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * only informationally. They have various "feedback" pages for the technical side of things. I dunno, I just wonder if "reference desk" is a bit stuffy, somehow. Martin

At the top of the ref desk page, there should be an instruction to place new questions at the top (or bottom?). Which is preferred? Top makes most sense to me. ike9898 12:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Bottom Optim 13:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added a link for easy addition of questions, copied from the Village pump, which will put new questions at the bottom. HTH --Phil 13:40, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we have questions on here that were posted in June. I think it's time for a little spring cleaning come early. &rarr; Raul654 01:35, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I archived some old questions. now the page is 35kb long. Optim 02:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
 * Thanks! &rarr;Raul654 03:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Editing conflict software bug?
I wonder what happened in the revision tagged 09:32, 14 Feb 2004. . Bevo to this page? I did make the edit tagged as 09:24, 14 Feb 2004. . Bevo (==grep with context==) but it wasn't me that did the next one. Strange! Bevo 17:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You made those to the pump, not the reference desk, I believe. &rarr;Raul654 17:18, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * no, my last edit to the pump was 11:12, 12 Feb 2004 Wikipedia:Village pump (== Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates == ) I hope this doesn't happen again!  Bevo 18:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Native American
And please don't use politically offensive terms like Native Americans--- it implies a couple hundred million of us native Americans aren't. Thanks. Alteripse 23:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don't think it's cool to bash someone about using "Native American", especially when we have the Wikipedia article Native American. For me, it's a little annoying when everyone reads political messages into terms; so much so that half the time I've no idea how to label something (particularly ethnic groups) in an acceptable way. &mdash; Matt 23:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Native Americans" is generally viewed as the "poltically correct" term in the U.S., so one can hardly blame anyone for using it, whether it is entirely fair or not. I don't like the implications, either, but we all know what is meant. But my comment to this query was simply that the mere fact that we don't say "Indian-style" anymore (at least not in the U.S.) surely indicates that, at least in popular opinion, it is associated with "Indians" from America rather than "Indians" from India (since we don't have any particular reason not to use the latter). Incidentally, some school teachers are now saying "pretzel-style", which I find rather cute. ;) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It isn't the first semantic atrocity committed under the banner of political correctness. "Native American" in that sense is at least as literally inaccurate and politically offensive as any other term used historically. The inescapable implication of the term is that 200+ million other native Americans are immigrants. It is a racist term with racist implications, and is used exactly as the Nazis referred to Jews whose ancestors had lived in Germany for generations. It certainly isn't one of the top 10 political problems we face these days, and I don't intend to spend time on an edit war at the article but I'm trying to raise a little consciousness here. Especially those of you who are native Americans should recognize what this term implies even if our article uses it and it takes a generation to get rid of it. Alteripse 00:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I just don't think it's fair to throw this particular soapbox at an anonymous user who, as far as we know, may have looked up the Wikipedia article in order to determine which term to use here. Assume good faith extends beyond the editing of articles. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Fair enough, I no more intended offense than the inquirer did-- my annoyance was more directed to the usage than the user. Sorry to any offended. Alteripse 00:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Alteripse, I'm curious: what term would you use to describe the people that the rest of us call Native Americans? I use that term because I'm not interested in perpetuating Christopher Columbus's sophomoric mistake of calling the indigenous people of this continent "Indians", especially since I personally know a number of people from the India.  There are no racist overtones in my speech and writings when I use the term, and I certainly don't use it as some sort of politically correct euphemism.  I fail to see what alternatives one would use in place of those two terms, unless referring to specific tribes.  --Ardonik.talk 02:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * But... surely anyone who is not a descendant of Native Americans must be an immigrant or descended from immigrants? Every person living in The Americas must be one of these, and they are mutually exclusive.  Caucasians are not native to any region outside of Europe.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta;♀[ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 02:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All evidence suggests the human race had a single origin in Africa. Much evidence suggests several waves of immigration from Asia to America occurred between 15-30 000 years ago. There are bits of evidence that there were more episodes of immigration from other continents before 1492; maybe not. At any rate, all of us born in America are dscended from immigrants. How many generations does it take to qualify as a native? Your taking it for granted that ethnicity is the same as being native is what has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and worse atrocities in Europe. No matter how many generations of ancestry in the country, the "____" should not be considered "native ____" and they don't really belong here. Nasty, isn't it? Alteripse 06:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. The majority of people are not insane and do not participate in ethnic cleansing.  Equating people with Nazis because they do not share your views of ethnicity is not a productive argument.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "Native American" has a 2 century history of being used to discriminate against immigrants of other ethnic groups. The groups change, but not the label, and not the ignorance and bigotry behind it. It is both inaccurate and racist to use the term Native American in a way that excludes the majority of native American citizens.


 * Native American in modern usage refers to the (large) group of people who cannot reasonably be said to be descended from immigrants. While the term may have had an unfortunate history of misuse by non-native groups, it is rarely seen today to connote any division between people of European descent.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as alternative terms, both First Nation and Amerind have less inaccurate baggage. Although the latter obviously derives from "American Indian" it is a new word without the ambiguity and has no history of misuse. I am open to other suggestions, but most of us should not metaphorically "exile" ourselves by allowing one group to claim "Native Americanness." If words don't mean what they say as long as everyone recognizes them, what was the problem with American Indian? Obviously what they mean is important to lots of us. Alteripse 06:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Both First Nation and Amerind are quite inaccurate. The first of these implies that these people had a single, unified culture and even some form of pan-American government.  It is thought there have been up to four migrations across the Bering Land Bridge; to which of these groups should First Nation apply?  How might one distinguish between descendants of each of the first four nations?


 * Indian as applied to native Americans is a continuation of a tenacious 500-year-old error from a time when Europeans believed India to be east of China. Using American to clarify which group is meant does not correct this error.  Amerind further suggests that there is some meaningful genetic connection between native Indians and native Americans.


 * The most accurate usage would be to refer to the native tribes individually, there being little connection between them. However, when referring to a nonspecific group of people native to the The Americas at the time when Europeans began colonizing the region, it is unambiguous to refer to native Americans.


 * By considering the indigenous people to be native Americans and myself non-native, I am not exiling myself, but rather acknowledging that my ancestors have not lived in North America for thousands of years. I might consider myself a native Scandinavian or a California native.  Regardless, I remain a native United States citizen.


 * As a final note, I would consider citizenship and nationality to be far more relevant to genocide and hostility toward immigrants than any notion of nativeness. Nationalism is a disease nearly as destructive as religion.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I didn't make up either of those other terms, so do not feel need to defend them. If I recall correctly, First Nation was devised by people belonging to that ethnic group. It certainly can be construed as claiming temporal priority, to which I have no objection. The term has political unifying implications much as European does, so most people feel a need for a term, but lots of us feel that Native American has all the drawbacks of American Indian. As far as your comment about citizenship and nationality being more important than perception of "nativeness" to ethnic strife, you are flat wrong: the Balkan wars, the German persecutions, the mess in the Caucasus, rebellion in South Tyrolia, the Basques, all involve people with the same nationality and citizenship. It is the "nativeness" that is used as the excuse for either independence or for expulsion and persecution. I suspect I've pissed you off enough that you won't agree the sky is blue, but I haven't offered you a single fact you can disprove. But feel free to keep your opinions. We can agree to disagree. Alteripse 16:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In fact, the sky is currently light gray.


 * The usual claim is that the target group is not really the same nationality as everyone else, or does not deserve to be, using ethnicity as justification for the claim that they are different (hence, ethnic cleansing). The rise of Nazism was due to the belief that great nations are built by great people, and that a particular ethnicity was superior to all others.  The Nazis considered the Jewish and Roma people to be inferior to all others, and therefore to be the greatest obstacle to nationalism, to be denied German (or any other) nationality.  Nativeness was inconsequential; the Nazis exterminated German Jews and Jews of other nations indiscriminately.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 17:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Native American is the accepted term for this large ethnic group, and there are no other accepted terms other than the individual tribe names, which I might add were frequently assigned by other tribes and are actually less accepted by the target tribes than Native American in some cases. I am not aware of any negative conotations of the term Native American other than those that would be implied by any ethnic classification term. Any suggestion otherwise is probably just trolling. --ssd 11:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ssd, "accepted" is a relative term. "American Indian" was the accepted term for a century or two. While "Native American" is widely accepted, it is also considered by many people at least as racist and erroneous as American Indian. And if you think your "awareness" is a criterion that we should care about, you need to get out of the house more--- I just provided the negative connotations and denotations in great detail. It is consdered extremely impolite here to characterize contributors with which you disagree as "trolls"; you owe an apology if you are the sort of person who tries to avoid incorrect insults (I recognize that you might not be that sort of person). Alteripse 12:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Political correctness shouldn't be chosen over clarity. Neither of those terms is widely used, and either one would require an explanation. This is the reason we don't use sie and hir. If one of the terms becomes an accepted term, we should use it. Until then we should refrain from using it. If Wikipedia was written 50 years ago it would use words like "colored" and "oriental." Those words are now negative but it is not true that every time they were used back then, they had a racist connotation. You are ascribing modern connotation to historical usage. Rhobite 13:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

No I am not. I am claiming that both modern and historical denotation are inaccurate and both modern and historical connotation are racist or at least objectionably ethnocentric. When we replaced American Indian for those same reason, we adopted an equally inaccurate and offensive term in Native American. Like American Indian, it will take time to convince many people it is a bad term, but it still warrants objection. As I outlined to Eequor, the term has nearly 2 centuries of offensive and racist use behind it. I agree with you that "American Indian" was often used without any intention to be offensive or racist. Unfortunately, you cannot say that about the term Native American, which has historically almost always been used in a context of a claim of ethnic superiority over unwanted immigrants. It was a term with terrible historical baggage to choose as a replacement for American Indian. And also, note what I am NOT doing. I am not changing the Native American article or even going there to debate, and I agree with you that it seems to be the most commonly used term these days and should be the main encyclopedic title. There was a time in the 60s or 70s when the other term I mentioned rivaled Native American in use. If you wish, pretend I am being a reasonable "American Indian" in 1965 and complaining politely about the inaccuracy and potential offensiveness of the title of an encyclopedia article. Your first reaction may be that I am being overly sensitive, but if you were born in the US and you don't claim to be a Native American, the term implicitly devalues your status even if you don't recognize it yet. Alteripse 00:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I don't suppose you could have this debate somewhere else &mdash; "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum" and all that &mdash; email? Or at least your User Talk: pages...it's way off-topic for this page. Thanks! &mdash; Matt 03:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well at least Eequor moved us off the reference desk so we wouldn't scare off new patrons. I think I've made my points even if some others haven't digested them yet. I'm patient. Alteripse 04:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)