Talk:List of First Nations peoples

message: I don't like the most recent edit that was made just to include some BC peoples. while I think it's good to include those people, the heading "western Boreal Forest" is misleading for two reasons. First, the western boreal forest covers not only the Yukon and most of the NWT mainland, but it also covers the northern portions of BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the western portion of Ontario. Should we include all peoples that live in those areas as well? In addition, the forest does not extend into any of the arctic islands or the majority of Nunavut. --Kmsiever 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the peoples I added are from the Yukon and only partially in northern BC, except for the Tahltan who are in extreme northern BC. All of them speak Athapaskan languages except for the Tlingit. I am not particularly fond of the section heading either, despite having created it. I would not object if you can think of a better one. Western Subarctic maybe? But your objection also applies to that. Note that there are no First Nations in Nunavut or in the Arctic (with the possible partial exception of the Gwich'in) as that is the preserve of the Inuit.  I'm also open to combining them into different regions.  Whatever works is OK with me, as long as the Yukon First Nations are included, and that the Athapaskan-speaking First Nations of the NWT, the Yukon and northern BC are not in the Arctic. Luigizanasi 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this. What if we patterned the list sections after it? --Kmsiever 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense: it's from an authoritative source (the Canadian Museum of Civilization) and reflects culture areas. I am not familiar with which additional First Nations would be in the southern Western subarctic other than the Cree. Plus their list of peoples of the Western subarctic is quite similar to the one now in the article. So I'm all for it. We might need some reorganization, combining the eastern sections and splitting off the Plateau peoples in BC, but that is not a big deal. The organization of this list has been bugging me for a while and I am glad you found what is hopefully a better organization.  Luigizanasi 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll go ahead and get started. Feel free to jump in. --Kmsiever 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Boreal Forest

message: The Inuit do not consider themselves First Nations, so if we are to include the Arctic peoples, we should change the article title to List of Indigenous peoples in Canada or List of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This would also entail digging out the wikilinks & fixing where necessary. Alternatively, we could remove the Inuit fromt the list with a note to that effect. Luigizanasi 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Duh! I knew that, too. Personally, I think we should go with making it inclusive. What is your preference? --Kmsiever 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm easy, either way is fine. :-) Maybe some other people might want to comment here. I suggest we wait for a day or two. Luigizanasi 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arctic, Inuit and article title 

message: I've added this for the following reason:
First two sentences of the article: "The following is a list of First Nations peoples organize==by Indigenous geographic area. This list does not include Metis or Canadian Inuit groups."
First listing of groups:
* Inuit
(and then sub-groups).
-- g026r 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inuit and Metis are NOT First Nations, not at all; they are defined as "aboriginal peoples" but do not consider themselves, nor are they defined as "First Nations", which refers to "Indians" only.Skookum1 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradict Template 

message: :The following is a list of First Nations peoples organized by Indigenous geographic area.
I'd say "indigenous geographic area" has to be defined; the list here overlaps between BC Interior and the Plateau section, "Plateau" being a US-tinted designation but also in use ethnographically for BC peoples from the Shuswap southward, maybe the Carrier and Chilcotin too; but is "Plateau" and "Plains" a geographic designation, and if so how is it indigenous, or aren't they ethnographic divisions?  In which case "Plains", Plateau", "Northwest Coast", "Southwest/Great Basin" and so on; the BC Coast/Interior things don't have to be labelled as such; ideally this page should exist independetly of US or Canadioan designations.Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Indigenous geographic area?" - whuzzat?

message: please see Portal_talk:Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#issues_with_FN_article_and_cat_names...we_need_to_evolve_guidelines.2F.22rules.22.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming guidelines for FNs need to be developed and established