Talk:Half-breed

message: Thus the term could apply to mulattos, mestizos, zambos, a bunch of others...
Gringo300 05:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [untitled section]

message: Although "half-breed" refers to anyone who is mixed Native American (especially North American) and white European parentage, the french word "métis" refers to anyone who is from various descent ; furthermore it is considered as being totally non-offensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.146.124.74 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Métis 

message: An ethnic group infobox may not be needed unless half-breed is considered an ethnic group. I think just the historical use of the term should be included on the page (e.g. use by government, geographical names etc.).-- Kayoty (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed infobox.-- Kayoty (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox not needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Half-breed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203185449/http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/scrip1.jsp to http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/scrip1.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am taking issue with the phrase "now considered derogatory".  Whilst it is admirable to try to be impartial, I don't think on this occasion the term is merely considered derogatory: it *is* derogatory. It is not merely a matter for "consideration" but is a fact, based on the actual meaning of the term and the connotations it has, as a matter of fact, in the current English language. Is Wikipedia challenging, or attempting to challenge, the meaning of the current English language? If it is, then anyone may as well take issue with any insult or anything perceived as an insult by claiming that it was not one when in fact it was. By attempting to remain detached and objective, Wikipedia is failing to be objective, since it appears to me to be taking a side that questions whether or not it is actually derogatory and merely says it is "considered" to be. Wikipedia should not take sides and should not be controversial over its claims, which it is now doing by causing me to take issue with the wording it uses to describe this term. EDIT: I have now reconsidered this and have gone and looked at a definition of "derogatory" (what the term is being said to be) on Google before returning here.  I note the definition is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". Yes, anyone who did use the term, in the meaning which is being discussed in this article, would be "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". That matter can therefore be objectively assessed and shows that such a use of the phrase would be derogatory as a matter of fact. Case closed. aspaa (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now considered derogatory? 

message: Relying on a dictonary defintion from a dictionary that is not in wide use is not a sufficent reference in terms of sociological terms that can be subjective as oppoosed to objective. It would be one thing if this were a dictionary in widespread use (such as Oxford or Webster) but the citation given here is inadequate in that regard. This need something more to make it less dubious. I've added the citations needed tag as opposed to the dubious tag to attempt to be gentler in approach to the fundamental problem. 07:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede citations needed tag