This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I personally did not welcome Canada's conversion of aboriginal to indigenous partly because indigenous is nearly impossible to use in a sentence, and partly because it appears to have roots in the word "indian" that I believe is colonialist in the extreme -that is, if you are not from India!
I am being assured that "indi-" prefix derives from latin "in" or "from" (such as in a google snippet that I have preserved and can share), but I cannot find any reference for "indi-" except as "indu-" roughly meaning hindu -or Indian from India. So, my concern has progressed to conspiratorial paranoia ;). Given the entirety of Asia was previously "India" to the West (not to mention the New World), I am believing that the current use is the same as the ancient use: a colonialist term.--John Bessa (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Although I find it hard to take the above seriously, I would advise John to search on the web for "indigenous" plus "etymology" to discover for himself the term's relative innocence.2A02:A452:9491:1:9465:8FF7:A93:66EA (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The claim that "most native Americans" would consider the word squaw "highly offensive, derogatory, misogynist and racist" would be hard to substantiate and seems to represent a partisan viewpoint, an impression reinforced by the series of qualifications that follows.2A02:A452:9491:1:9465:8FF7:A93:66EA (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This has been resolved and sourced on the article itself, and I have imported sourcing from there. It's common for those unfamiliar with the topic to raise this objection periodically. Please read the sources and talk page at the main article. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Naming Controversy unresolved on WP
Because the issue of the naming controversy is unresolved on WP (meaning one clear policy) the subject is left to subjective interpretation and as a result edit warring. The article mentions the"Salient Issues affecting the debate"however WP needs a clear consensus to avert and forestall any edit warring. My personal opinion is Native American (NA) or native American with the context of a sentence. It is enough that some of the NA community perceive it to be pejorative, aboriginal and indigenous is too wordy and "intellectual", native is sufficient. Using the word Indian is confusing to a younger, less educated reader who might think the article is discussing the Indian subcontinent.Oldperson (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to the Indigenous wikiproject talk page and ask for input. - CorbieV☊☼ 21:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I think in this situation MOS:VAR applies and therefore no edit warring should occur and whatever "style", here the way Native Americans are referred to, was used first should be kept unless consensus, either in the community at large or on a page's talk page, is formed to make a change. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The section on the term "Injun" claims that the term was originally intended to mock native Americans' pronunciation of "Indian" or something or other.... this seems highly questionable to me. I think it is was more likely an example of excessive yod-coalescence, that is, hick talk. (Similar to, e.g., "jeet?", meaning "did you eat?")
Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
If you can find WP:CITEs discussing it, feel free to add it. Heiro 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that would be absurd to include that in the article, and it was not my intention to suggest any such thing. The subject of this thread was not to discuss alternative theories on the origin of the term "Injun" that might be included in the article - it was to discuss what already IS in the article, which is, in my opinion, highly dubious, and furthermore, is UNSOURCED.