Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Archive 2

This page is an Archive of the two GA reviews of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. (Aug 2009) Please Do not edit!

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 finally copy of Article that Passed GA review -31 October 2009. (permanent link) List of peoples Can a separate list article be started named Notable Aboriginal People of Canada and then the main characters added to this article in prose instead of listing format?SriMesh | talk 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC) See comments for side bar ...here and here as for list of people ..i say any help to cleaning up the article is good Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) There is already the List of First Nations people, not to be confused with List of First Nations peoples, but it contains several errors as it includes Inuit and Métis. There is a List of Inuit but it contains is basically for all Inuit/Eskimo. I've been working on the List of First Nations people off Wikipedia but there are several duplicates and Category:First Nations people also includes some US people as well. What I would suggest is that until there are three proper lists, List of First Nations people, List of Canadian Inuit List of Canadian Métis people the notable people section just be turned into a see also with links to Category:First Nations people, Category:Canadian Inuit people and Category:Métis people. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Began setting list to prose... and adding a citation for every person in the article. Removed...Harriet Nahanee, Nuu-chah-nulth, activist, residential school survivor...not because she isn't notable as she has a wiki article, however this Aboriginal peoples in Canada article is very very very long, and perhaps the listing should be culled in comparison to others who are noted. Please re-add if one wishes to... Will make further notes like this as I go on, then I will tie all the prose together when finished adding the folks in sentences. As perhaps...Kashtin was a Canadian folk rock duo comprised of Innu Claude McKenzie and Florent Vollant may be another of the deletions from this article proper. SriMesh | talk 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Removed Lorraine Peter, Gwich’in, politician, as above, IMHO, this is just as the article is very long. (If you come along and disagree, re-add as prose with a citation to the article.)SriMesh | talk 03:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Me again, removed Tecumseh, Shawnee, general was noted as Native Americans in the United States leader of the Shawnee and a large tribal confederacy that opposed the United States during Tecumseh's War and the War of 1812. He grew up in the Ohio country during the American Revolutionary War and the Northwest Indian War where he was constantly exposed to warfare. There may be in fact historical Canadian aboriginal peoples...Big Bear Chief Whitecap - Wapahaska or Almighty Voice when they get article written about them or more from this list Native Political Leaders (96).SriMesh | talk 03:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) As above...removed Eva Aariak, Premier of Nunavut SriMesh | talk 04:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC) From the section on Inuit peoples.... removed Leona Aglukkaq, politician, current Federal Minister of Health... as above SriMesh | talk 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Removed Nakasuk, founder of Iqaluit failed to find reference....  :-( SriMesh | talk 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I randomly added images of a few of the persons mentioned. Chose the images which were not copyrighted, which did not need fair use image rationale templates...used those which were free to use in articles easily. Those images chosen can be changed to whatever another editor would like to use, just stated how, why I used the images chosen. SriMesh | talk 16:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Next section now removed... François Beaulieu, chief of the Yellowknife tribe ... cannot find a reliable source or huge notability in comparison. Working on it in my sandbox to avoid edit conflict, then will add here.SriMesh | talk 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Me again pruned out.... as above....Lorna Docken, Vice-President and interim President of Métis Nation – Saskatchewan Wally Firth, first Aboriginal to win a seat in the House of Commons Shelly Glover, Member of Parliament for Saint Boniface, Manitoba ...SriMesh | talk 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And again pruning... Audrey Poitras, president of the Métis Nation of Alberta Mary Richard, activist and politician Nick Sibbeston, former Premier and current Senator for the Northwest Territories Charlotte Small, explorer Tony Whitford, Commissioner of the Northwest Territories SriMesh | talk 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Removed Kashtin was a folk rock duo comprised of Innu Claude McKenzie and Florent Vollant. Robbie Robertson, Mohawk, musician, singer-songwriter, and guitarist is best known for his membership in The Band. Shanawdithit was the last recorded surviving member of the Beothuk people of Newfoundland. Inuit-Paul Okalik was the first Premier of Nunavut whose "dream was to help his people in their dealings with the Canadian justice system." Ann Meekitjuk Hanson is the Commissioner of Nunavut as well as civil servant, broadcaster, journalist and author.Alootook Ipellie was an illustrator and writer who told the stories of the Inuit people in print. SriMesh | talk 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Before GA review I may consider doing a GA review here, but i thought I would raise two issues before it gets to that point, that will improve the chances of it passing. Before I do, I should say that the article is already an impressive assembly of knowledge. First, it is missing a major section, alluded to in the lead, but not really covered in the article: the political and legal status of first nations and their rights, generally, and with respect to land. This should be a high-level section, of equal importance to "History" and "Culture", the current two main headings. This section would address such points as: What treaties exist? What self government exists? How is representation organised? What identity and rights is/are recognised by the constitution, treaties or law? Do Aboriginal peoples have politically organisation(s) or movement(s) and what has been their effects? I understand that the current article is a top-level summary article, so I am not suggesting all these need to be covered in detail- they do need to be summarised. Second, the referencing needs to be improved. There are lots of weblinks that do not state the publisher of the website, nor a retrieval date, for instance. I hope this is of assistance, despite making work for editors :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Yes you are right ...it should be there..but this will take time ,,maybe a hold on Ga review should be added,,,i am the one that put it up for GA review...and see lots still needs to be done..on the side bar there is info ther i will collect it and make a sub aticle here...TKs for your input (i do not have much experience in GA reviews),,,,,,i would guess first nations should be on hold to for same reason,, Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC). --JUST FYI before you add alot of info-guys i helped write the article The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis that You mention here Buzzz and put in your nice template. That article covers centuries of interaction with the government of Canada and mentions (with wiki links) the treaties, case law and the Indian act and most other Political topics. It was decided long ago to make that article because of the vastness of the topic. It was onces all here and was moved on a split recommendation if i remember well. 174.115.165.184 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I was wondering if there might be a backstory along those lines. That looks like it would contain at least some of the relevant info, so would eliminate the need for some of the work, as well as providing a 'main article' link. thanks AnonIP! cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Began expanding the first few references using Cite templates as was started for many of them. SriMesh | talk 03:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Ok have added more info with new refs.... But not to much as per above discussion. What treaties exist? What self government exists? How is representation organised? What identi# 2 Politics and Do Aboriginal peoples have politically organisation(s) or movement(s) and what has been their effects? 2 Politics 2.1 Treaties 2.2 Indian Act and Bill C-31 2.3 Health Policy 2.4 Political Organization o 2.4.1 Name controversy and pls SriMesh double check my ref... Ps is there a better name for section??? Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) It is wonderful to see those sections added to the article. SriMesh | talk 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC) tks SriMesh ..yes this article is pretty well done ... 174.115.165.184(y he has no user name is beyond me hint hint) and I have started to tackle the expansion of the Métis people (Canada) article pls fell free to jump in at any time :) pls pls. 174.115.165.184 added most of the content ..i am helping with wording, references, pictures etc... Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC) GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, this article does not qualify for GA status at this time. I encourage editors to renominate once the below issues have been addressed Writing and formatting Only the first letter of a section heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns)  Done Left proper nouns and titles of events as capitals only. Some formatting issues in Notes, for example current ref 82.  Done Perhaps have "Terminology" (without "Controversial") as its own section, right before History?  Done Moved to see how it looks Why is the title "Aboriginal peoples in Canada" and the bolded phrase in the lead "Aboriginal people in Canada"?  Done chose the s as there is another article which also uses the s....Indigenous peoples by geographic regions Sorry did not see this note before ..it has an s because we name the article to match the wording used by the 1991 royal Commissions (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples ) and is it also used by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Quite a big article for a summary - some of the information should probably be put in daughter articles This will be the next bit to do....Need to get the article near completion before one can say what is not desperately necesary to the main flow of the concept. An old version is 8,110 words, 45,736 characters, 118 paragraphs, 724 lines long of readable prose not including tables, infoboxes, references, see also, TOC or picture summaries...and it asks for 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose...on Wikipedia:Article size It asks that ancient browsers cannot handle over 32kb in size,..and still do some cell phone browsers but current web browsers collapse at 400kb....Should we add one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors...? It has since been shortened again. Forgot to put that version number in... The article number 318390529 article provides a readable word count of 7,438. Spelling should be consistently Canadian - there are some American spellings that need to be changed American to Canadian format: organise, recognise, realise, travelled, programme, metre not the American organize, recognize, realized, traveled, program, meter Civilization is in the title of many articles quoted from Civilization Canada, so cannot be changed...Will again re-check this with auto peer reviewer when all changes are nearing completion. Meter is picked up from cemetery so cannot be changed to cemetrey.  ;-) Some of the stuff talked about in the lead isn't mentioned in the article, and much of the article is not mentioned in the lead. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article.  Done The lead has had changes initiated, it can be expanded, but the lead introduces the article and points to all the sections. There's a lack of encyclopedic tone in some areas  Done CE and BCE should be spelled out or linked on first appearance  Done this is done Common Era and Before Common Era Needs general copyedit - some areas are lacking in clarity  Done Should avoid conditional verb constructions unless absolutely necessary. Also try to avoid passive voice  Done Found all those which both Auto peer review and MS word found... There's no need to use both bullets and numbering at the same time  Done Left bullets List of notable Métis should be converted to prose Work in progress  Done culled some, added some. List of notable aboriginal people is too long; some people should be taken out (possibly put in a daughter page?) Started to do some weeding already....will mayhaps have to do more,... added those correspoding to lea images, so now some should go away  :-( "See also" links should not be duplicated in the text. It's recommended that these links be alphabetized  Done Reduced size of see also list, however...the following I have not added to the prose, but will shen the notable Métis is converted to prose North-West Rebellion Red River Rebellion and will add these to the respective notable person .... Ipperwash Crisis Aboriginal rights activist, kept the list here to remember  Done mentioned in notable people Eight wikilinks point to disambiguation pages Is there a robot that identifies these? You can use either this script or this one Thank you.  Done Fixed these links to disambiguation pages Clovis, Kitikmeot, Linguistic, Navajo, Nootka, Peigan, Spears and Scraper (archaeology) using first tool.  DoneAvoid using "we" or abbreviations like "e.g." Removed e.g., left the use of we as in this case it is in a quotation of how the terminology is used.  Not done - there's another "we" in the early history section  Done - thank you missed that one, in the many instances of web and were and however that come up in a control F find. Avoid wikilinking the same term more than once Is there a robot to find these at all or is it just a visual thing betwixt various editor's revisions?  Done I think this was mainly the prose section of notable people repeating wikilinks of first Nation, Métis and Inuit, but tis fixed now, and ...Northwest Territiories.  Not done No bot, unfortunately, it's a visual thing, and I still see a few. Also, milleniums probably should not be linked, but feel free to add other unique relevant wikilinks.  Done..Looks ok to me..pls double check Aboriginals can't really be called the "initial founders of the Americas" - maybe "initial inhabitants"?  Done Be consistent in the use of hyphens/dashes The words hyphenated are.... Paleo-Indian, Pre-Dorset, pre-date, mid-17th, inter-tribal, Self-Government, Post-Archaic, 1000 BCE – present, Bill C-31, Thirty-five, gender-specific, self-identification, three-step, ice-age, ice-free, human-worked, pre-glacial, hunter-gatherers, 11,000 -10,000, re-visited, skin-covered, pre-Columbian, Na-Dene, Athabascan- speaking, multi-family, 8000-7000, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Nuu-chah-nulth, sea-mammal, long-distance, Pre-Columbian, Post-Archaic, pre-pottery, pointed-bottom, flake-stone, marine-oriented, oil-burning, 500 BCE- 1000 AD, un-organised, Norse-made, 14th-century, Anglo-Métis, non-status, ever-changing, short-form, pre-existing, five-volume, 4,000-page, non-Aboriginal, non-self-governing, self-government, ten-year, self-determination, Aboriginal-designed and -controlled not-for-profit, well-being, multi-nation, by-product, European-style, Non-Status, non-indigenous, Eskimo-Aleut, Montagnais-Naskapi, Oji-Cree, Kutchin-Gwich’in, Historica-Dominion, inter-cultural, re-invent, Blondin-Andrew, Tsleil-Waututh, Award-nominated, singer-songwriter, Irish-Algonquin,widely-travelled, single-word, culture - Qaujimajatuqangit, Watt-Cloutier, co-founder, post-Confederation, North-West, 1837-1906, Rochon-Burnett, Canadian-American, Sometimes it is 11,000 to 10,000 using the word to instead of a dash. The words using dashes are .... Era BCE – 8000 BCE, 8000 BCE – 1000 BCE, 1000 BCE – present, BCE – 8000 BCE, 12,900 – 11,500, BCE – 1000 BCE, BCE – present, First Nations – Federal Crown Political Accord:,  Done Avoid run-on sentences  Done MS word found many of these, and they were changed, shall re-read backwards with a fresh eye later tonight There are some inconsistencies in capitalisation that should be addressed  Done Fixed First Nation and Aboriginal to be capitals You've got some terms italicized in the text that shouldn't be - for example, The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis  Done Blockquote should be used only for quotations of 4+ lines  Done I don't see this anymore, but it was there before, so I am believing it is done.  Not done - it's under "Terminology"  Done Accuracy and verifiability A couple of web references are missing access dates  Done -pls note this was done after reflist on this page and double check this as ther are over 200 to look at All quotes must be cited  Done - both are done The "References" section is not italicized properly  Done---well i think you mean layout|templates of references Citations needed for: These bodies however are not recognised by indigenous people in Canada as representing their interests.  Done was in old lead..its now gone. It assessed past government policies toward Aboriginal people, such as residential schools, and provided policy recommendations to the government.  Done According to archeological and genetic evidence, North and South America were the last continents in the world to be inhabited by human beings.  Done One is that people walked south via an ice-free corridor on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, and then fanned out across North America before continuing on to South America. The other is that they migrated, either on foot or using primitive boats, down the Pacific Coast to the tip of South America, and then crossed the Rockies and Andes to populate the rest of the lands. Either or both are possible, but evidence of the latter would have been covered by a sea level rise of hundreds of metres since the last ice age.  Done This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come  Done-Article discuses 3 different migration routes, thus i believe it shows the ongoing debate..Pls see if this is ok The theory of an ice-free corridor running north and south through Alberta during the Late Wisconsin period was introduced by geologists in the 1950s  Done Some theorists are seeking to develop a colonization model that integrates both North and South American new archaeological records.  Done The Na-Dene people occupy much of northwest and central North America starting around 8000 BCE  Done They prospered from approximately 7000 BCE (9,000 years ago) into modern times along the Atlantic Coast of North America.  Done Copy edit - 7000 BCE to 1500 BCE (9,000-3500 years ago)- The Woodland Cultural period dates from about 1000 BCE to 1000 AD and is associated with Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime regions.  Done Many aboriginal civilizations had long faded by the time of the first permanent European arrivals (c. late 15th–early 16th centuries), and are known only through archaeological investigations.  Done Researchers believe that the Dorset culture lacked dogs, larger weapons and other technologies that gave the expanding Inuit society an advantage over them.  Done Boundary disputes were common and gave rise to aggressive actions  Done It is unclear whether they were there as the result of trade or plunder  Done It seems likely that some of their fathers spoke Gaelic, thus leading to the development of the dialect of English referred to as "Bungee"  Done Métis French is best preserved in Canada, Michif in the United States, notably in the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation of North Dakota, where Michif is the official language of the Métis that reside on this Chippewa reservation. The encouragement and use of Métis French and Michif is growing due to outreach within the provincial Métis councils after at least a generation of decline. There is substantial controversy and disagreement over who exactly is Métis. Unlike First Nations people and Inuit, there is no distinction between status and non-status. The legal definition itself is not yet fully developed.  Done the First Nations saw these agreements as meant to last "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow."  Done copy edit-the First Nations saw these agreements in treaty 8 as meant to last "as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow." are occasionally used as descriptive terms by U.S. Native Americans in solidarity with their First Nations relatives.  Done- Statement removed can't find ref ..added to sentence before deleted item (sentence) that shows many terminologies and does not mention any solidarity use of term. A more recent trend is for members of various nations to refer to themselves by their tribal or national identity only  Done Although Indian remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution, its usage outside such situations can be considered offensive, well Aboriginals is more commonly used to describe all Indigenous peoples of Canada. 'The confusion with term Indian can likely trace its lineage to the European explorer Christopher Columbus who was thoroughly convinced that he had discovered a new route to India. It also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands. update in bold from above I have removed this statement completely...as i read it - it seem more and more out of place ..plus we need space  Done In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is considered pejorative by the Indigenous peoples of the area and has been replaced by the term Inuit. But, the Yupik of Alaska and Siberia do not consider themselves Inuit, and ethnographers agree they are a distinct people.  Done Most aboriginal political organizations arise from the need to be united and to have their opinions heard.  Done There are more reserves in Canada than there are First Nations, which were ceded multiple reserves by treaty.  Done Indian reserves, established in Canadian law by treaties such as Treaty 7, are the very limited contemporary lands of First Nations recognised by the non-indigenous governments  Done Today, there are over thirty different languages spoken by indigenous people, most of which are spoken only in Canada and are in decline.  Done Among those with the most speakers include Anishinaabe and Cree, together totalling up to 150,000 speakers; Inuktitut, with about 29,000 speakers in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador); and Mi'kmaq, with around 8,500 speakers, mostly in Eastern Canada.  Done sentences removed- found out that the info was from 1998 and very dated--new totals are already listed in chart bellow this old sentence. In Nunavut, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are official languages alongside English and French, and Inuktitut is a common vehicular language in government  Done Many of the artworks preserved in museum collections date from the period after European contact and show evidence of the creative adoption and adaptation of European trade goods such as metal and glass beads.  Done Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew only by 29% but after the 1960s the infant mortality level on reserves dropped dramatically and the population grew by 161%.  Done The day was first celebrated in 1996, after it was proclaimed that year, by then Governor General of Canada Roméo LeBlanc, to be celebrated on June 21 annually. Most provincial jurisdictions, however, do not recognize it as a statutory holiday. (there is a citation, but it doesn't support any of this)  Done--old reference removed- Notes 5, 21, 50 , 74 are broken  Done Note 14 has a doi error Ref works fine for me...pls explain further The listed DOI number for what is now ref 21 leads to http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000829, which claims a DOI not found error Okay, that's weird...it still doesn't work in the article, but the link here works. Not sure what's causing that...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Donefixed had an extra period at the end . Formatting problems with several notes  Done Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should be avoided where possible  Done...have changed all but 2 out of 200+ refs Note 38 is not a reliable source - see WP:RS  Done-- but info from 1962...this is all i can find in my libraries at Ottawa University..it says " By 1975 45-65 percent of all crops grow in the world will be Americanizations of plant species. Note which links require login/subscription to access i cant find any ?? (buzzz) Given that none of the References are in Notes, the section should be renamed "Further reading"  Done Some of the notes are incomplete - for example, "McGhee 1992:194" is not a complete citation * Done Reference added that i believe is needed ...but was over looked  Done - Several more localised regional cultures developed from the time of the Younger Dryas cold climate period from 12,900 – 11,500 years ago. Broad Too much detail in Notable aboriginals, not enough in Politics, Law and Legislation Added too section Politics, Law and Legislation- new sub-section (with refs) Royal Commission see -->Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Royal Commission Louis Riel deserves more mention than a single bullet point  Done added more, and exchanged a few notable people Neutrality Problems with WP:WTA, WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK MS word spell and grammar check is picking up a lot of these, but is ending up in edit conflict, so shall return in a bit...SriMesh | talk 17:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)  DoneReturned and finished MS word and grammar check which finds passive voice, and looked at Automatic peer reviewer which picks up weasal words, and they seem OK now. Look at WP:ASF - opinions of researchers may be offered, but only facts should be asserted Lacking in encyclopedic tone in places I think the above checks have fixed these. Stability No issues noted Images Lead images - these images cannot be said to represent the article when Capilano and Ulrikab are pictured but not mentioned anywhere in the text  Done the people who are imaged in the lead infobox are now in the article. Clovis point.jpg needs a date  Done - Example of a Clovis fluted blade that is 11,000 years old and added =Image courtesy Vof the Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources.url=http://www.kenmore.org/ferryfarm/archaeology/arch_special/early-man.html Source link on Chippewa_men_Bad_River.jpg is broken, and it should have a more descriptive caption  Done-simply replaced photo Const-proc.png is tagged as requiring reduction. It also has no fair-use rationale for this article  Done -simply removed photo In "Demographics", the image doesn't match the list of areas - missing Northwest Coast  Done since GA review Well ok lots to fix but i see no problem with most of the Citations needed you mentioned?? I dont think a reference is need for every sentence especially if it has a link to a main article on the subject. like - According to archeological and genetic evidence, North and South America were the last continents in the world to be inhabited by human beings. -'This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come. did you see the link to (Further information: Understanding the time debate) ???? Although Indian remains in place as the legal term used in the Canadian Constitution, its usage outside such situations can be considered offensive, well Aboriginals is more commonly used to describe all Indigenous peoples of Canada, were the term Native is only used in the United Stats of America. The confusion with term Indian can likely trace its lineage to the European explorer Christopher Columbus who was thoroughly convinced that he had discovered a new route to India. It also refers to self-identification of Aboriginal people who live within Canada, but who have not chosen to accept the extinction of their rights of Sovereignty or Aboriginal Title of their lands.}} well this ref i cant see getting much better??? It clearly says indian in its terminology. There are more reserves in Canada than there are First Nations, which were ceded multiple reserves by treaty This is not a debate. This fact can easily be seen in the list on First Nations govenment article. as for more comments on 'Politics, Law and Legislation.On this this talk page we have discussed this and it had been been shorten as per recommendation by your peers and was split into its own article that technically is also to long. Louis Riel deserves more mention than a single bullet point---he is mentioned more in the metis article as are all the people from his generation. This article is a general over view of all the related copies. you will notice that beyond 1000 BCE time period has 3 separate articles to cover this time as at this point the history of Inuit, First nations and by the 17thcentury the metis are all distinctive groups and need their own articles. we have a problem ...the article is too long as you mentioned but you also mention expansion on many topics....this is very confusing..should it be longer or shorter?/ Anywas this is by-far better the may of the articles I have seen Rated GA. I am not complaining all thought it may seem like it, just confused as to what can be done as most of what you mention was already decide on in many previous debates. 174.115.165.184 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I also don't think that a reference is needed for every sentence. However, any sentence that is an opinion or potentially controversial does need a citation, even if it's covered in another article. The sentence "This is a hot source of debate and will be for years to come" obviously falls into that category. And while the ref you provided does use the term "indian", it doesn't explain either the source of the term or whether/why it is "offensive". While the list article mentioned may have more entries for reserves then for First Nations, wikipedia articles can't cite other wikipedia articles - you need an outside source. The article should be slightly shorter, but the way to do this is not to have a sum total of less information, but rather to split some of the information here into daughter articles (especially in the notable people section) and have a summary here (and I'm sure you'll agree that Riel is notable enough to be mentioned in that summary?). You don't need a larger amount of information, you just need a summary of information that's organized to provide a broad overview and a pointer to more specific information. Hope that clears things up for you. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Well tks for the review Nikkimaria.....unlike user 174..etc ....I see what the problem is, but to be honest i dont see that anyone is going to fix all that you mentioned. I am happy with what is here and have no real intent to fix all my self. i guess we will just have to be happy with what we have. Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Don't give up Buzzzz... if you putter away at some, and I will putter away at some...it will soon be done, there may be others who gain interest as well, if we contact a few in the edit history who have shown an interest and ask if they are still interested. We can just put  Done templates after each point with a comment if needed as they are completed and voila!! it can be re-nominated. It is improving very rapidly every time I peek it is better and better. SriMesh | talk 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Dame you SriMesh - i was ready to move on to the metis article- but ok i will help- i see your editing now i will do some things tommow. Good job, good to have you back and then definitely pick up on a few things here and there on the other article as well, you have done such a wonderful job here already!!!! SriMesh | talk 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This may or may not be helpful to anyone working on improving the article (I didn't try it here, so I'm not sure...). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the notes Nikkimaria, you did an in-depth job in your review, and spent quite a lot of time. When the improvements are done, the article will be better, and they are coming around...will take a bit of work. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Obvious care Has gone into this article and it rocks. Lots and lots of cool information. Problem is it is really long. The other problem is that it is really interesting and long does not seem so bad... but it is super long. I broke up some text and did a tiny amount of copy editing. Maybe it should be shortened, but that would be tough. Making spin-off articles may work... and then linking them to this main article. skip sievert (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC) tks :) ....SriMesh and i have been talking about this size problem and are running into a problem that most if not all section already have there own articles ...What we may need to do is just copy edit some stuff out, but like SriMesh was saying to me it all flows so well and will be hard to nitpick out stuff without losing the constance of information...WAS THINKING TO ASK FOR REVIEW AGAIN..you guys think we are ready??? or is this size thing a big GA problem? ...notable people section i believe is very important in showing that Aboriginals in Canada have made great contribution to Canadian society in all fields of Canadian culture. Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I used hide comments for some of the expansion in the bulleted points in the political section, and again removed some more and more notable people. Should the hidden comments be added back in, or does Bill C-31 and Royal Commission read OK now that they are a bit shorter, yet still the politics section is longer with these sub sections added in?SriMesh | talk 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Looks good to me ....i say add the hide stuff to main articles that way no info is lost in the shorting of this article....feel free to past it all on my sandbox and i will copy edit the stuff to proper articles. Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) So the full text is at User:Buzzzsherman/sandbox,and I will remove from this article SriMesh | talk 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ok tks Done and Done ...I will go back later to do more fixup..fell fee to jump in anyone :) --->Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples --> Indian Act.........................................About this article Lets put this up for review again. I have informed Nikkimaria hopefully he will have time to be the one (hint-hint-wink-wink) as he has been here all a long watching us. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (Maybe "he" would help out more if rightly referred to as female:P) And I'll see what I can do, but if it's me, it won't be this weekend as I'm heading home for Thanksgving. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC) LOL i am so sorry ...My Queen we will wait for your return to this realm to do the GA evaluation,,it will give us time to weedout some more content and double check things to make it easy on you to do the GA review,, Godspeed my Royal Highness..lol.. :) Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I went through the lead again, this time copy editing more trying to take out extraneous language and trying to make it simpler or more direct, also because of the length of the article and the different aspects now in the lead I further broke it into four paragraphs... though this is usually not a great idea it seemed to call for it because of the direction of the writing in the lead... so maybe it would be ok. for now to have four paragraphs. I am wondering about the long charts and graphs in the article about populations and languages breakdown. Is it possible to have links to that material or articles about that instead of having those very long lists of names and numbers in the two sections. If that was eliminated as is a lot of space would shorten in the article length. Article links for curious people might do that, or just links to the government sights that provided the info. - Comments? skip sievert (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Yes i see that Aboriginal languages chart is also here Spoken languages of Canada#Aboriginal languages ..But looks like the Demographics chart is only here...IT could be moved to Demographics of Canada#Aboriginal status that has the room..........I am willing to do this move ..but will not do the mve until i here from SriMesh or Nikkimaria on the matter.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC) For the language chart, you could reduce its size either by combining languages from the same family (for example, Algonquian languages or Algic languages), or by introducing a cutoff line at some number of speakers and combining every language below that line into "Other". That's not a possibility for Demographics, although you could combine regions (North, Praries, etc) or remove one or more column. My preference would be to have some of this information, even in reduced form, in the main article, with the complete charts in subarticles. However, if size is your concern, one of the two could be removed entirely and its basic statistics (no. of speakers if Language, % of population if Demographics) incorporated into the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Do we need to do this..before GA review?? or can we leave it for now...I would like to get this to GA and even FA level before more copy edits happen that we need to fix..........I see many many articles that are over sized just like this one,,etc [[[Hitler]], Canada, Rolling stones and on and on. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) No. IMO, the article can pass GA even with those tables in their current state. If you think the article is ready to be renominated, go ahead. However, I can say fairly confidently that those tables would be problematic at FA level, and that most FA reviewers prefer that all necessary editing be done before the article is even put up on FAC (of course, there will still be editing to do, but at that level there should be nothing major). Also, if it's your intent to head to FAC I can give you a tougher review if you like...:P. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Second GA review - Oct 13, 2009 OK guys i have put it back up for GA review and informed Nikkimaria about it...so hope all will be ok ..if anything found wrong during review...will fix on the spot to pass GA process. Wikipedia:Good article nominations as for charts i will make a toggle [hide] for them in html but this will take some time ..i have lots of work for the next few weeks as for FA level lets do one thing at a time...I will readup on FA level stuff after we get GA Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sounds good by me, my goodness, you are already thinking FA!?!?! Coool. Well, I will peek here and there to help with GA, was called away for a bit. SriMesh | talk 04:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC) GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Will begin re-review shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Writing and formatting "The Métis culture of mixed blood, meeting of new groups, originated in the mid-17th century, Native Inuit married European settlers at that time,[7] though the Inuit had more limited interaction with European settlers during that early period" - grammar  Done RE-worded "Various laws, treaties, and legislation have been enacted between the influx of European and Aboriginal people to attempt to find a "Canadian culture"" - meaning is unclear, grammar  Done Article still has problems with grammar and clarity that need to be addressed  Done re-read through again, and tried to fix this aspect BCE stands for Before Common Era, not before Current Era  Done but BCE disambiguation page and Common Era article should also be changed Still have a couple of duplicated wikilinks and disambiguation links used Europe not European European, used Clovis culture not Clovis, Clovis, plurality, spear not spears... spears Looked for repeat wikilinks but I did not see any...I don't think the article falls into the category of overwikilinking as there does not seem to be one sentence bearing the same wikilink within it. overlinking and that there is a rationale for repeated links being used. I think it makes sense to have a wikilink in an image caption or infobox or table and then repeated in the prose, as sometimes the lead infobox is not next door to the prose section, and a reader may not see that there is an article for the information they are needing. Still a couple minor problems with lack of consistency for dashes/hyphens Cannot find them, put article into microsoft word for a search and it came up empty As a quick example, some of the date ranges use hyphens and some use dashes. Word might not distinguish between the two? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I found it unique that one hyphen looked like a dash when surrounded by spaces and the other hyphens are not surrounded by spaces, will keep looking .... fixed one instance and fixed it. Most dashes are typed in as mdash or  — and hyphens are typed as -  DoneI believe all are caught now again. Short two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible Smooshed short section/paragraph about National Aboriginal Day into culture section Problems with capitalization consistency remain Can you provide a hint if possible what is not being caught. Two quick examples: "X̲á:ytem" also appears in all caps, and "Hopewell Exchange System" also appears as "Hopewell exchange system". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Changed these and caught one other, and fixed. Accuracy and verifiability Ref 84 is broken  Done Still some minor issues with formatting in references, for example current ref 83 Pls tell me more i just cant see them (Buzzz) Example: current ref 84. ^ "The Red River dialect". Blain, Eleanor M. (1994).. Winnipeg: Wuerz Publishing.. http://tceplus.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001097. Retrieved 2009-10-15. - author and date is italicized needlessly, two double periods. It's little things like that, not huge problems but worth fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) ok periods gone ..but odd i cant fix the " " ther note in the code = <ref>{{cite web |title=The Red River dialect |work=Blain, Eleanor M. (1994)|publisher= Winnipeg: Wuerz Publishing |url=http://tceplus.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001097 | accessdate =2009-10-15 }}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |title=The Red River dialect |author=Blain, Eleanor M. (1994)|publisher= Winnipeg: Wuerz Publishing |url=http://tceplus.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001097 | accessdate =2009-10-15 }}</ref> -Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 139 requires a subscription/login  Done changed ref Citations needed for: A sideline industry emerged as well though in the un-organised traffic of furs overseen by the Indian Department.  Done The distinct Métis cultures that have arisen from inter-cultural relationships with Europeans contribute new culturally hybrid art forms.  Done Indigenous people in Canada do not recognise these bodies but represent their own interests relying upon their traditional laws and governance and pick their representation accordingly.  Done Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew only by 29% but after the 1960s the infant mortality level on reserves dropped dramatically and the population grew by 161%.  Done Broad Notable people section is very long relative to the other sections of the article Have sent out a request for futher help in this area from others. this is a hard one to fix...yes long but lots of important facts about history are there..this i not just a list of people ..but includes text with links to important events like Meech Lake Accord, Assembly of First Nations, Commissioner of Nunavut, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Red River Rebellion, North-West Rebellion, National Aboriginal Achievement Award and so on and of course mentions people like Louis Riel and Ethel Blondin-Andrew(the first Aboriginal woman to be elected to the Parliament of Canada)..I believe all this are very important links and subjects that must be on the main Aboriginal page. To break down all this topics would make the article much bigger then it is now. anyways just my two cents ...I hope your call out gets us some ideas.Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC) My response would be that most truly important facts should be a part of the history/politics section. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) what if we re-did the section ..called it Historical figures ' remove this version to a new article that we could expand on called Famous Aboriginal people in Canada. We would or i guess SriMesh would just make a small paragraph about the historical people and not the famous ones as well..because lets face it a Hockey players is not a historical figure. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC) There would be a good idea, there are categories on wikipedia of aboriginal peoples but no list format for aboriginal peoples, so these paragraphs could introduce a list type article. Politics, and history get more accounts in biographical books than sports figures, not sure if one is more important than the other, but historical figures fit this article better, and a list type article can be more inclusive of all fields and areas of notability.SriMesh | talk 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Update page made with older lager version of what is here +++ plus made nice intro ..Notable Aboriginal people of Canada.Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC) What do you guys think of this --> moved it to here User:Buzzzsherman/sandboxBuzzzsherman (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Hello there, that turned out well! You are amazing! It saved the listing of names originally put forward, and it gave them enough space to grow and expand rather than squee - ashing them into a section of this article. I shrunk the list in this article with greater ease, and watched for grammar and style issues when discussing notable figures so readers could fancy their own point of view regarding notability and famous criteria.SriMesh | talk 01:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) ok your looks better stick with it ok that did work out well.Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Kept a short section to expound upon the lead image figures &c.SriMesh | talk 01:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Having trouble with spacing the paragraphs for some reason though argggh.SriMesh | talk 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) very nice rename the section Historical figures so people will not add other types of Notable people. We keep getting closer and closer to this GA thing :) Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC) In an ideal world, yes.... I am not sure now, or the lead image pictures will need to be changed as I made little blurbs for the lead images....Joe Capilano, Ovide Mercredi, Abraham Ulrikab, Tanya Tagaq Gillis, Louis Riel, Tony Whitford, Tom Jackson, and some of these folks are not historical. There is a limit as to who actually has an image which is not under copyright in wikimedia commons. Perhaps with evolution the lead images can help this section and vice versa.SriMesh | talk 02:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC) But it should be re-named so the entire title of the article is not present again in the section title. IMHO, but not all are historical as per point above. ... so maybe section title.... Pre-eminent figures, Notable figures, Noteworthy persons...City articles might name their similar sections... Notable natives and residents... or... Notable people. SriMesh | talk 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Neutrality According to WP:WTA, certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided Is there a bot for this?? my MS word thingy only notices 1 word> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.108.70 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) OMG sorry guys this is me ..I forgot to login i guess.Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think there is, unfortunately. The auto-peer reviewer covers weasel words, but I don't think it covers WTA. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) i have to pass this task on ....I just dont see them Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Addressed this point. Stability No issues noted. Images Not a GA requirement, but if you're planning on going to FA all images will need alt text - see WP:ALT for details Still puttering at alt tags  Done And also changed some U.S.A. aboriginal images to Canadian aboriginal images Joe Capilano.jpg needs categories Seems to have some on commons Hopewell Interaction Area/Sphere picture - caption should match the information given in the image, and the text should match both Playing with template annotated image... to fix this, I think I have it now! Current text: The Hopewell tradition is the term used to describe common aspects of the Aboriginal culture that flourished along rivers in the northeastern and Midwestern United States from 300 BCE to 500 CE. The Hopewell tradition was not a single culture or society, but a widely dispersed set of related populations, which were connected by a common network of trade routes, known as the Hopewell Exchange System. At its greatest extent, the Hopewell exchange system ran from the Southeastern United States into the southeastern Canadian shores of Lake Ontario. Local expression of the Hopewellian peoples in Canada include the Point Peninsula Complex, Saugeen Complex, and Laurel Complex. Possiblity to change text... how about instead something like... The Hopewell tradition is an Aboriginal culture that flourished along American rivers from 300 BCE to 500 CE. At its greatest extent, the Hopewell Exchange System networked cultures and societies with the peoples on the Canadian shores of Lake Ontario. Canadian expression of the Hopewellian peoples encompass the Point Peninsula, Saugeen, and Laurel complexes. do it ......Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC) OK done... Removed Alaskan Community... as it seems to be more U.S. aboriginal archaeology than Canadian.... The Norton tradition is an archaeological culture that developed in the Western Arctic along the Alaskan shore of the Bering Strait around 1000 BC and lasted through about 900 AD. The Norton people used flake-stone tools like their predecessors, the Arctic small tool tradition, but they were more marine-oriented and brought new technologies such as oil-burning lamps and clay vessels into use. They hunted caribou and smaller mammals as well as salmon and larger sea mammals. Their settlements were occupied permanently, as is evidenced by village sites which contain substantial dwellings. Crombie1983.jpg is marked for review. Furthermore, the image description says the image is dated 1983, but the caption suggests 1985. Would like to leave it as this. The alt tag gives the photo as being taken in 1983 at David Crombie's leadership convention. The article Aboriginal peoples in Canada notes that after this convention, David Crombie became Federal Minister in 1985 for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and in this portfolio he is quoted as saying.... Indian Act Amendments - Bill C-31... Recognize the right of Indian communities and bands to determine their own members marks a historic departure from a century of paternalism. It is also a milestone in the Government's desire to advance towards greater recognition of Indian self-government... as per quotation cited within the reference tag. This is the only image on wikimedia commons relating to Bill C-31. This is the rationale to use it in this way. David Crombie is David Crombie used his 1983 image to represent his likeness in 1985. In that case, maybe leave the date out of the caption? Something like, "Federal Minister of Indian Affairs the Honourable David Crombie was responsible for Bill C-31"? Feel free to re-word that a bit if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I just didn't want folks to think he was the current minister.SriMesh | talk 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) OK again, i labelled him Former with above blurb! good idea. It is just marked for a review because a bot moved it from wikipedia to commons. Does it need to be deleted, no substitute, I don't know how to go into commons to approve the robot move. GabrielDumont.jpg has a tag requesting evidence of public domain status in the US. Replaced image Overview of all Ok what is next ??? anything ???Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I also think we should contact Nikkimaria to see if all the points brought forward have been met.SriMesh | talk 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Remaining minor issues: don't use "Sometime" (unencyclopedic), referencing format issues, "Pre-eminent figures" needs some copy-editing, might consider removing the date ranges from the subheadings and instead integrating them into the article text. If you're planning on going for FA, you're going to need to pay more attention to WP:MOS details, but I'm not going to bother requesting that at this level. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) removed "sometimes"  Done consider removing the date ranges from the subheadings  Done "Pre-eminent figures" - integrated in to sub sections on individual groups  Done referencing format issues .... looking for problem but having trouble finding them We may try plunking all the references into citation templates, I think most of them use templates, but it would be good to double check to meet the ref formatting issues.SriMesh | talk 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC) ok i found Checklinks: Aboriginal peoples in Canada this [1] and got rid of any "Connection issue" "Connection failed" "remote server error" or "Dead" etc...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Good check above, that turned out well. OK, again, I think we should contact Nikkimaria to see if all the minor points brought forward have been met.22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)  Done All reference information data have been plunked into templates so all formatting is done by automatic via the template.SriMesh | talk 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) as of Oct 19th All looks good GA our way soon :) Peer reviewer Checklinks Readability Altviewer.py Dablinks.py Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Very close, but the stuff that was in Preeminent figures, even though it's been moved to other sections, still needs to be copy-edited. Commas in those sections are particularly problematic. (Yes, I know I'm a grammar Nazi, but it needs to be good). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) SriMesh get to it....LOL we are almost ther!!! your better at grammar then me Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, we'll try this one now.SriMesh | talk 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) B.S. This article is crap ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.189.105 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Encyclopedia of Earth I really like this peer reviewed information source Encyclopedia of Earth, and just noticed they have an extensive history section on Canada, and it includes some very interesting information about the historic peoples of Canada, here, that I was thinking would be useful as a whole separate external link for the article page, or as a sourcing connector for things in general, in the article. Here is the main page of this information also. You people are intimately familiar with this article and kudos on the high level of cooperation here. I am bringing this to your attention and wondering if and where it may be appropriate to add this into information for the article, and will leave that also to yourselves. Comments? - skip sievert (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Added to external links Thank you for suggesting this link of historical mapsSriMesh | talk 23:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Nice. skip sievert (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Removed text Removed ... The Métis homeland also includes parts of the northern United States (specifically Montana, North Dakota, and northwest Minnesota). Reason... pertains to the U.S.A. not CA SriMesh | talk 02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) WOW it looks good ....It took some time but you got the size down.....So whats next? Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Introduced Template:Rp Introduced Template:Rp (Information at Template:Rp/doc ) for usage when a book resource is used multiple times with different pages being accessed for each citation.SriMesh | talk 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) so cool you sited the page from a book reference i added...did you run to the library to check it??? LOL no really how did you know the page etc...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)