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
h2g2 has an "ask h2g2" page - maybe this should be "ask Wikipedia"? 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)
Ok, we have questions on here that were posted in June. I think it's time for a little spring cleaning come early. → Raul654 01:35, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
