Good articleIndigenous peoples in Canada has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Toolbox

Clarification under "Indian Act"[edit]

Under "Indian Act and Bill C-31" is the sentence "Those people accepted into band membership under band rules may not be status Indians."

Is that meant to mean "Those people accepted into band membership under band rules are not allowed to be status Indians." or "Those people accepted into band membership under band rules might not be status Indians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.211.143 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2016‎

Addition of an article discussing contemporary Indigenous visual art[edit]

It could be beneficial to include a page on contemporary Indigenous art to differentiate between ancient Indigenous art forms and modern practices. This may also highlight the ways in which ancient art forms are being used by Indigenous artists to reclaim endangered techniques in light of Canadian residential schools, as well as artistic responses to these findings.

I have more info about this and references on my user page User:Skyef25/be bold Skyef25 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be the page to talk about Darell Night. About art.....was thinking a fee years ago to start a page on this. Moxy- 00:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Noted Skyef25 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Thinking time for a GA review....lots of stuff and charts added over the years that need to conform to GA level. Moxy- 01:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portal box border?[edit]

As of 1 December 2022, there are 305,746 uses of ((Portal)), of which 261 have no border. What is the reasoning behind having <0.1% of the portal boxes be visually inconsistent with the other 99.9%? Why should the portal box on this article have no border? — hike395 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time that only "no border" was seen in mobile view.....but thats all over as all are seen in mobile view now. Moxy- 13:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hike395, it sounds like you disagree that the template should have this functionality. That's an argument better made before using AWB to mass-remove it. Where have you established the necessary consensus to change this styling in 200+ articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think there may be cases where the border should be off --- I want to keep the functionality in the template/module, just in case it is useful. So far, in scanning the articles that have |border=no, I have not yet seen any reason for borderless boxes. If there were some reason to keep one for an individual article, I certainly would retain it.
Moxy makes an excellent point that this is likely to be a holdover from an old decision to hide portals from mobile. Let me turn it around --- is there a reason (other than an historical accident) to keep the 0.1% of the boxes inconsistent with the rest? Is there some criterion I should use to keep an article borderless? Or even make more articles borderless? — hike395 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I can't tell if you're objecting to the edit itself (i.e., you think that borderless boxes should be retained in some articles)? I can't yet tell whether this is uncontroversial or not. — hike395 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the edit itself and the approach. Aesthetically the no-border version looks fine, and doesn't look different enough that I think someone is likely to notice that other articles have borders (unless for some reason it's specifically pointed out). Process-wise, the no-border version AFAIK is an acceptable format - let me know if I've missed something to say it isn't, but if not, then WP:VAR applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Adding: I've just compared on mobile view and both versions look pretty horrible IMO (it might be worth doing some more mobile-specific styling), but the no-border version makes more sense in that context since it matches the image styling. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mobile display of Portal boxes is broken (IMO). I've proposed a fix at Template talk:Portal#Odd layout in mobile (proposal implemented in the sandbox, see Template:Portal/testcases) — hike395 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
btw, one case where border=no would clearly be helpful is in templates such as ((WikiProject Birds)). Ideally, the link to the portal would have no border and no background. — hike395 (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personaly think the no-border version looks better. That said for many longtimers removing the paramater all over look like someone is making the parameter unsed and thus subject to parameter removal down the road. As for WikiProject banner would need coding update at Template:WPBannerMeta for no-border to work. Moxy- 16:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Peoples[edit]

The idea that there are only three indigenous peoples in Canada is a strange Canadianism. Every distinct indigenous people is an indigenous people in international law. Metis is also used in at least two different senses: some Metis believe it should only apply to red river metis, and some use the term in a sort of quaint 19th centutry scientific racism sense of people with "mixed breeding" or "mixed culture," as though that did not also apply to "Indian" peoples who use gasoline engines.

Inuit is perhaps an authentic autonym, but Metis and Indian are broad terms that will encompass many indigenous peoples. I don't know how this is reflected in primary sources, but Canada often does this in all sorts of legislation, where international norms are flat-out ignored, or half-implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D68:4700:C40F:10CE:DC38:D800 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories