Talk:Métis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Métis

Theres a massive diference between Métis of Canada and Mestizo of Latin America. Starting with the history (Lous Riel etc) right through to diferences in acceptance within society.

These articles ought not to be merged, but rather the article on Métis needs to be expanded.

Which is precisely why there is an article for the Métis of Canada. --Kmsiever 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The rationale for the merge eludes me. The term Métis is French (hence use of it in Vietnam). However, "The Métis" really only refers to the people in Canada. "Mestizo" is only related in a very general way (people of European/Aboriginal origin). Beyond a one-line statement to that effect there's not much more that the peoples have in common. What's with this merge mania? Sunray 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

French Wikipedia article

The french wikipedia article [1]on Métis explains the use of the word in French and the different groups around the world. That article simply provides a link to Mestizo. Personally, I think there should be a page for the general term "Métis" and then links to articles about the different groups around the world as each has their own history.--Raisaroo 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

How come there's a separate article for the word Métis? The modern ethnic group in North America is already dealt with in Métis people, and the use of this French word to refer to people elsewhere is explained under Mestizo. If this article is intended to refer to anyone of part-French ancestry from Indochina to the Pacific to the Caribbean, then I think it should be much more explicit about that. //Big Adamsky 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge the articles. Métis relates to Canada, Mestizo relates to Latin America, therefore they are different concepts. -- OldRightist 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the articles explaining the non-English words Métis, Mestizo, Mestiço, Mestiso and Mischling are all used both in their non-specific sense of "mixed-race" and in a more specific meaning referring to a particular group of people in a particlar geographical setting. But for Métis there are separate articles for the generic meaning and the particular North American meaning. As already stated, other people in other parts of the world also are identified and self-identify as métis/métisses. My point being that mestizo means different things depending on whether you are in Latin America or elsewhere in the world. Compare Mulatto which can only refer to one mixture (black + white; although no longer in any fixed proportions). //Big Adamsky 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote at Talk:Mestizo I think they could profitably be merged, as long as the current article is not replaced by a redirect but by an explanation providing links to Mestizo and Métis people (okay, I didn't write tht last part before). And I agree that in a general sense the two words mean the same thing. John FitzGerald 03:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. Métis is a distinctly Canadian term. The closest french equivalent is Métisse (which is most often used to mean "French and Black" mixes). Some Métis do refer to themselves as Métisse, but that is a preference. To put another point of view on this article, consider that in Section 35 of the Constitution act of Canada that "Indian, Métis and Inuit" are labelled as the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. Add to this that these are distinct groups and are not meant to be generic in nature as the constitution of Canada then reaffirms that these groups have rights. In order to confer rights, there must be a distinct membership. Without entering into the ensuing political and legal debate, suffice to say that merger is inappropriate. While Métis, may have come from Métisse which may have come from another root latin word: These words no longer mean the same thing. To be simply mixed blood in Canada does not confer Aboriginal rights, no matter the blood quantum. For those interested, look up R. Vs. Powley for more information on Métis legality issues and identity. For etymological reasons, a link to similar root words may be interesting, but I think a merger is unwarranted and would end up being confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.89.131 (talk • contribs) (06:40, 10 March 2006)

Redirect from Mestee

Mestee is a separate word from Métis. The Métis are a specific first nation with a particular mixed heritage of a certain tribe and french fur traders. Mestee refers to any first nations (of any nation) people of mixed white, indian and oftentimes African descent. Two different terms entirely. Mestee is not in a lot of use these days, hence the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.149.246 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mestee is not a separate word from Métis. It is a different spelling of the word Métis and has a similar meaning of being 'variously mixed' with European-Indigenous-African blood which is a movement of the same meaning of the word over time and space; which means 'admixture' and can include self-consciousness of specific cultural traits and practices and admixtures; also such admixtures move and change demographically, geographically, and by class distinction. The term 'Metis' is not calcified and static. The expression of 'Metisness' is changing and will continue to change, just is has Mestee. Also, their ARE Metis people's from history who were AFRICAN-FRENCH speakers and INDIGENOUS and who were well known fur traders. The myth about the Metis in Canada only being from "Pure White French or Anglo European stock and marrying into the so-called "Pure" Indigenous bloodlines of Indigenous woman is a new neo-nationalist, almost White supremacist lie. The Other spellings of Métis include 'Mestisse' 'Metisse.' Mestee is still in use in some communities on the Eastern Seaboard. Métis did not originally mean "specific first nation with a particular mixed heritage of a certain tribe and french fur traders." This is absolutely false in every way, shape and form. This specific term you mention is only a recent modern use of the term 'Metis;' (and I would argue is actually 'Anti-Metis,' in terms of the original historical character and spirit of Metis peoples everywhere) it is a made up fantasy that denies the other ethnic contributions and admixtures to the North American fur trade era. it is only recent, in the last 60-70 years in Canada that this 'New Meaning of the term came into being.' Any comprehensive textual or literature search on the use of the word and term 'Metis' will prove my point and show a very low dispersed use of the term Metis which is clearly evident in a textual search; all over North America, from various peoples with various admixtures, including French, English, British Isles, Black and Indigenous -Mexican; French speaking, Spanish speaking, Dutch, German and English speaking cultures, the term was used; the frequency of usage of the term 'Metis' went from approximately a 0.000020% use in all literature surveyed by data bases and that mentions the word 'Metis,' starting from 1800, with little change of the frequency of the use of the word for 160 years, (as the Metis word also meant "1/4" of a mixture both including and not including regional cultural specific practices); so therefore you had a stable population of people who were "becoming a 1/4" of something through intermixing, usually Indigenous admixture, but not exclusively. Then in about 1960, in a period between 1960 to 1990, the use of the word Metis went from a stable 0.000020% and skyrocketed to 0.0000966861% ( Ngram Viewer) which is an increase of almost 80%! What could be going on here? Did suddenly the use of the word 'Metis' become so prevalent among people, due to an 80% increase in births, and evident in census records, discussed in research journals, books, newspaper articles, etc. etc., as to warrant a similar increase in actual real live, mixed Indigenous European 'Metis' births in Canada, and thus explain the subsequent 80% rise in the use of the term 'Metis?' Where are all these visibly darker skinned-Euro-Canadian-Indigenous mixed Metis people? I don't see them. I keep encountering, everywhere I go, totally and completely 'White' Metis people, who all say the same thing; I'found out I had an Indigenous ancestor' 5 or 7 generations ago through a genealogy search, and I am now 'Metis,' because I fit a 'narrow criteria' of a "specific first nation with a particular mixed heritage of a certain tribe and french fur traders," but yet the 'french fur trader' part is missing, since their father's side in the family were never trading furs but were 'boat builders' or 'farmers from Iceland,' and they have no connection to any tribe. So, due to all these reasons mentioned above, Mestee should remain connected to Metis, because Mestee is Metis. Just as is Mulatto, Mestizo, Mestico, Melange, Boise Brule, Red Bone etc. It is a different variation on a word which means the exact same thing. Metis are not above this reality; i.e., that they are somehow are of a 'pure' 'Metis' blood line, separate somehow, removed from all the other mixing that happened in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubarde (talk • contribs) [2]

Changes in preparation for the merge

As a Canadian Metis, I made some big changes to this article which I thought better repesented the wiki-interests to merge the terms metis and mestizo. I tried to make language of the article more neutral so the term metis could be used in a cursory manner for the Metis Nation of Canada but disentangle the article from its former narrow association to the new wider desired use of the word (ie. to merge it with other article). Northernstar79 07:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Métis, though many of my friends have been, but from what I understand, since the 1982 Constitution or maybe since some agreement since, the term Metis in Canada means not only the traditional Metis of the Prairies as described in the current article, but also anyone of a certain percentage of mixed-blood people of status descent as well as the original Métis. I'm not sure about Metis politics, but I think there's a parallel Metis organization for the non-traditional Metis. At least there is here in BC. Maybe they've amalgamated nationally or something?

Skookum1 07:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In Québec high-school history class we were taught that métis meant the off-spring of a white-male and female-native. This is why this term is confusing as it has different meanings depending on what part of Canada you are from and sometimes it gives a person certain status and other times no. For example, I had met Ontario hunters who would one distant Native ancestor to get their métis card so they could hunt off-season in Algonquin park. Murmullo (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a Metis, I have ancestry connections to the red river fur trade. The term Metis is used rather loosely. The traditions, culture, and customs associated with My culture, are passed down generation to generation, and elders i n my community, still speak michif. Since we the Metis didn't sign treaties, and being a highly mobile people, business men, and diplomats we opened up the west to the start of the Canadian Nation, we still are here. Before the Canadian flag, the Metis flag, was and is still here. Our flag still eclipses this Canadian flag.

To be canadian is, that of a country that has many languages and no distinct culture itself. Apparently to be a culture or a canadian eh! have to love hockey, and go to work, and talk down everyone that is aboriginal. I am Metis, i fish without a license, i hunt without a tag, and i don't care about the size of the horns, i care about the taste of the meat. I can do the jig, and dance on the candian flag, I will wear my metis sash.

(a metis without borders) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.142.95 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mestee and Mustee both redirect here - ??

I'm not sure at all the inclusion of the Southern US term is the same, as it referred to black-white mixes....I think, I could be wrong, it might refer to aboriginal-white or aboriginal-black mixes too, though in the US South I thought that was "creole". Mustee I've always associated in a pejorative sense with mixed black-white people.Skookum1 (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Phonetic sounds for Metis

I am wondering why someone used Greek letters for the pronunciation?Domsta333 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's gone now, with the proper French origin given. The Greek form, in the nominative anyway, is pronounced -eese with a final 's' unlike the usual English form, which is May-TEE or often MAY-tee. And the Greek vowel for the first syllable is entirely different, also. What's missing here is the canadien pronunciation, which given the French spelling used should be given - Meh-TSEE - with the common t->ts heard in quebecois and I think also in acadien, I'm not sure about Metis French, it may be different.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Usage of 'Métis'

I was just looking for information about the vietnaam and noticed that this page makes it look like metis people only means the mixed native people of canada. Metis is used to refer to many other mixed people. For example the mixed vietnamese-french people (many of which were born during or after the war in vietnam). Someone with more wiki-courage should edit this page ;). MisterSheik 03:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going to move this page to Métis people (Canada), and then someone can provide a more general article here. John FitzGerald 01:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a stub here as well, mainly cribbed from the French side. Now, before changing all those links that need to be changed, I'm going to wait and see if anyone moves the old article back – if someone has a better way to handle this problem I'll be all for it. John FitzGerald 01:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, outside of Canada, Métis gets used in french colonies referring to children of ethnically mixed marriage. See: http://indochine.uqam.ca/en/historical-dictionary/886-metis.html. However, we do not have a section about the vietnamese métis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmullo (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Based on MisterSheik's comments, I added a small section about métis in indochina, however it needs work. Murmullo (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Redundant "Métis in Canada" content?

Since there is already a child article for Metis in Canada, why keep so much material about Canadian Métis here? Could it be taken out and merged with the other article? This article seems more appropriate as a general explanation of the French term "metis" which is in use worldwide, not just in Canada. 184.144.103.225 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar Indigenous Peoples of Canada

I don’t think it belongs here. It’s correctly used in the Métis in Canada article. This article is not about Canadians. In fact, you’d have to add a sidebar on Indigenous Peoples in the United States. Anyway, anyone got a problem if I take it out? deisenbe (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Article title/content problem

Someone has added a section on the "Métis" in Vietnam which is a group entirely separate from the group in this article. Another case of the WP:NAD problem that plagues Wikipedia: Confusing the topic with the terminology used to describe it.

The term Métis is, of course, used in a variety of contexts in French and English. Though the North American group is perhaps the most well established it is by no means unique. Also I debate the usefulness of having Métis in Canada, Métis in the United States, and Métis. Though certainly there are some unique aspects of the subsets, does that really mean separate articles are necessary? To be honest the U.S. subset is not particularly large or organized.

Let me make a proposal.

• Merge Métis in Canada, Métis in the United States and Métis into Métis (North America).
• Create a Métis people (Vietnam).
• Change this article to be a disambiguation.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Since métis are pretty different in the U.S. than in Canada, I think they should stay separate articles. deisenbe (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A Métis man and his two wives, circa 1825-1826.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Métis (capital "M") versus métis (lower-case "m", French word)

This article, and the article Métis in Canada, are mixing up a couple of terms. In French, the word "métis" with a lower-case "m" refers to any person with an ethnically mixed background, living anywhere in the world. The person could be Creole, Eurasian, or so on. The term "Métis" with a capital "M" is used in Canada to refer to a specific cultural group, the Red River Métis (who are considered one of the groups of Indigenous people in Canada). The Red River Métis have an ancestry with mixed Indigenous and European families (usually Cree, Ojibwa, Scottish or French) but have their own unique culture, language, customs, etc. I think a clear distinction needs to be made between the more general meaning of the French word, versus the specific Métis people in western Canada. This point has sort of been raised above by others. There are people throughout Canada, and the world, who might describe themselves as lower-case m "métis"... or they might be described by others this way... but they aren't the same people as the Red River Métis. Just wondering what others think of this point, I could edit some stuff later after I find sources. This entire article is actually quite confusing and a bit misleading. It should probably just explain the meaning of the word in French, and point to more specific articles on specific métis groups worldwide (like Métis in Canada). OttawaAC (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is specifically about Métis in North America, not general discussion of the word “Métis”.—Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do only the Red River Metis have the right to capitalize the usage of Metis? Are they saying that these other 'mixed race' Metis people in Vietnam, Senegal, Russia, Central America, Eastern Canada and in other places in North America and around the world who choose to use the term, and have used the term based on historically established, hundreds of years-old traditions, are somehow 'not legitimate;' as people with 'agency?' to decide how THEY call themselves? and how to use the term? Isn't that a kind of weird 'Aryan' purity, White supremacist ideology going on here? This is an outrage if this is the case. Imagine Woman in California telling all other woman on the West Coast they could not longer use the term 'Woman' to describe themselves as they for some reason 'are not legitimate.' Imagine if Chinese people in China said all the Chinese born in South America are not 'Real Chinese' and therefore have to use the term Chinese with a small 'c.' Really! what could be the matter here? What is really going on here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubarde (talk • contribs) [3]

All Métis are descendants of First Nations People and some Native American People and French and to a lessor extent Scottish people but not all descendants are Métis. The Red River Métis have a distinct language, customs and traditions. Descendants of indigenous Peoples and non-Natives, unless they are distinctly Métis are descendants. There is nothing wrong with being a descendant and I am not sure why those who are feel the need to adopt a specific title. It has nothing to do with purity, it has to do with being recognized my a specific community.

A person with Chinese ancestry born in Argentina for example would be a Chinese Argentinian. A person with Chinese ancestry born in the United States would be a Chinese American. Neither are citizens of China so they are not Chinese. It's really quite simple. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Métis in Canada" content

There is already a well written article regarding this content, I would like to remove the repeated information from this article and keep it strictly as an overview of who the Métis are on both sides of the border. I'd like to add what kind of political organization there is (both in Canada and the US), discuss the role of the border and how that influenced the Métis on both sides (include discussion of the Medicine line and it's history, this is not in the Métis in Canada article and only a slight mention in the article of the 49th Parallel) and maybe touch on court rulings. Is there opposition to me removing this section? S.cacciotti (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged. MorningThoughts (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Already a great deal of duplication between these three articles. Once they are cleaned up and sourced, they will all fit easily into one, much better, article. I'll start in soon. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• In my experience, merges are rarely improvements. If these three articles... I am guessing you mean Metis, Metis in Canada and Metis in the United States duplicate information that is a problem. Information duplicated between multiple related articles is a problem because that means there are multiple articles that need to be updated, when new information requires an update. It is a problem when the multiple locations contradict one another. Even if the multiple locations are synchronized, they can diverge, again, and start to contradict one another when they are subsequently updated. So, yes, articles that duplicate the information in related articles are a problem.

Another solution is to strip away the duplication. In this particular case, strip the duplication from Metis in Canada and Metis in the United States, and leave most of the shared information in Metis, leaving just enough to provide background in the other two articles.

CorbieVreccan, did you consider this? Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Once the duplications, incorrect and uncited stuff are all cut from this article, there will hardly be anything here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem that way to me. Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. There are not a large population of Métis people in the United States, and those that are here have historical roots in Canada. Yuchitown (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown
• Support. I just removed some crazy, uncited material. The factual aspects of this article duplicate the Métis article. Writing-on-stone (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)writing-on-stone

• Don't merge The historical and present-day contexts surrounding being Métis in the USA vs. being Métis in Canada are distinctive and very much influenced by the presence of two different nation states dividing a traditional territory. Adding adequate sources and content in this article, such as adding references to works by scholars who researched Métis peoples in the USA (e.g. Michel Hogue, Nicholas Vrooman, Ruth Swan, Martha H. Foster, only to name a few.) would highlight the unique experiences Métis personhood south of the 49th parallel. These experiences were not necessarily replicated in Canada, despite the fact that many Métis families have relatives on both sides of the line today. ProfPigeon (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There's not much useful information currently in the article. Would you care to contribute anything substantive to it? Yuchitown (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

I would like to add a summary to the introduction, as there currently is none.

S.cacciotti (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. It's been seven and a half months since the merge was first proposed with three votes for (I'm include the original proposal as a vote) and one against. Does anyone else want to vote? Can we wrap this up? Yuchitown (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Support U.S. communities may be smaller, but their cultural roots are the same. The Métis Nation's own research shows that even the Red River-centric cultural area stretched way down into Illinois and Missouri. However, the article should present the broadest definition of Métis as the primary definition. Canada's Supreme Court ruled against the narrow, Red River-centric, Métis Nation definition in Daniels v Canada. The Métis Nation should either get a section of the broader article or a separate article of their own. They are one kind of Métis people, but they are not the only kind recognized under Canada's constitution. 2TWarren (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support I support the merge with clean up, which I am unfortunately unable to contribute to right now. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Homme-acadien-predeportation1700s.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Q and a

Hey. I’m Métis. And living in the USA . anyone have any questions for me ? Freedomnowandforever (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Freedomnowandforever: Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia does not use original research. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Michif is a mixed language, not a creole

The wikipedia page for Michif specifies that it's a mixed language, and not a creole. The Michif section of this page also calls Michif a mixed language. The book Nominal Contact in Michif by Carrie Gillon and Nicole Rosen says in its introduction, "Michif is usually characterized as a ‘mixed language.'" On January 27, 2020, someone added "Creole" to the page in a lot of other parts of the page. I'm not sure how to best approach changing all of those as I have little experience editing Wikipedia pages.

Calebdgm (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence

This sentence from the lead makes no sense, and I don't know enough about the subject to know what it's trying to say: "As from the groups such as the Manitoba Métis Federation strongly contest the notion that the origins of the proper noun “Métis” and the historical record clearly indicate that it refers to all people of mixed Indigenous North American and European heritage." Hoping someone can fix it. Somatochlora (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.cacciotti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cplaag. Peer reviewers: Ewalker2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcoffmanpstcc (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Some definitions of Métis

For information.

---

Le petit Larousse, p. 654, c. 1962

Métis, Métisse adj. et n. (du latin mixtus, mélangé), Qui est issu du croisement de sujets de races différentes || Qui résulte d'un mélange : toile métisse (lin et coton).

---

Oxford Languages online

Mé·tis māˈtēs noun

noun; Metis; plural noun: Metis; plural noun: Métis; noun: Métis; noun: Metises; noun: Métises

(especially in western Canada) a person of mixed indigenous and Euro-American ancestry, in particular one of a group of such people who in the 19th century constituted the so-called Métis nation in the areas around the Red and Saskatchewan rivers.

adjective: Metis relating to the Métis.

Origin

latin		French
mixtus	—>	métis	—	>	Métis
		English		^
		mestizo	—	^

from French métis, from Latin mixtus ‘mixed’ (see also mestizo).

---

The American College Dictionary, p. 767, 1962

métis n. 1. any person of mixed ancestry. 2. U.S. a person of one-eighth Negro ancestry; an octoroon. 3. Canada. a half-breed of white, esp. French, and Indian parentage. [t. F. g. LL mixticius of mixed blood]—métisse', n. fem.

---

Merriam-Webster online

mé·​tis | \ mā-ˈtē(s) \ plural métis\ mā-​ˈtē(s) , -​ˈtēz \

Definition of métis - a person of mixed blood especially usually Métis : the offspring of an Indigenous American and a person of European ancestry

NOTE: In Canada, the name Métis refers to one of three major, legally recognized groups of aboriginal peoples, the other two being the First Nations and the Inuit.

---

Le Robert Dico en ligne

métis​​​, métisse​​​ adjectif et nom

1. (PERSONNES) Dont les parents sont de couleur de peau différente. nom Un(e) métisse.

2. (ANIMAUX) Issu du croisement de races différentes. Chien métis. ➙ bâtard, corniaud, croisé ; RÉGIONAL zinneke. (PLANTES) Hybride. Œillet métis.

EN APPOSITION Toile métisse OU nom masculin métis : toile de coton et de lin. Drap métis.

SYNONYMES métis adjectif

• métissé, chabin (Antilles), mulâtre (vieux), quarteron (vieux), sang-mêlé (vieux)
• [Zoologie] hybride, bâtard, corniaud, croisé, mâtiné, zinneke (familier, Belgique)
• bâtard, mâtiné

DÉFINITION ANCIENNE (17e SIÈCLE) Dictionnaire universel de Furetière, publié en 1690. Définition de « MESTIF, IVE » subst. & adj. Quelques-uns disent metis, & mestice. Qui est venu de deux differentes Especes. On le dit proprement des chiens engendrez d'un chien & d'une chienne differents d'espece. On ne sçait quelle sorte de chien c'est là, il n'est ni matin ni levrier, il est mestif. Le mulet est d'une nature mestive, engendré d'un asne & d'une Cavalle. Ce fruit est d'une nature mestive ; il n'est ny poire, ni pomme, mais il participe de l'un & de l'autre.

MESTIF, se dit figurément des hommes qui sont engendrez de pere & mere de differente qualité, pays, couleur, ou Religion. Cet enfant est mestif engendré d'un pere esclave, & d'une mere libre, d'un More & d'une Espagnole. En Espagne on appelle Mulato, celuy qui est engendré de pere ou de mere de differente couleur ou de Religion, qui participe de l'une & de l'autre, comme un mulet participe de deux natures ; & c'est une fort grande injure. On appelle aussi mestif, un enfant né d'un Indien & d'une Espagnole, ou au contraire, dans le pays on les appelle crioles. Au Perou on appelle proprement Mestis, ceux qui sont nez d'un Espagnol & d'une Sauvage.

Définition de « METIS » adj. masc. C'est un nom que les Espagnols donnent aux enfans qui sont nez d'un Indien & d'une Espagnole, ou d'un Espagnol & d'une Indienne. On appelle aussi chiens metis, ceux qui sont nez de differente race, comme d'un Levron & d'une Épagneule.Cblambert (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Le petit Robert 1989 ed., p. 1228

MÉTIS, ISSE. [metis] adj. (Mestiz, fin XIIe; bas. lat. mixticus, de mixtus « mélange »}. 1. Qui est mélangé. Qui est moitié d'un chose, moitié d'un autre. — Mod. tissu métis, toile métisse, dont la chaîne est en coton et la trame est de lin (fil et coton). Sust. du métis, Drap de métis. ♦ 2. (Metice, 1615; du port. de même orig.) Qui est issu de croisement de race, de variétés différentes dans la même espèce. Dont le père et la mère sont de race différentes. Enfants métis. Subt. « La métisse épousée par le commandant de Maize. » (Mart. du G.) Métis né d'un Noir et d'une Blanche [ou d'une Blanche et d'un Noir] (V. mulâtre), d'un Européen et d'une Asiatique (V. Eurasien) Descendant de métis et d'une race pure. V. Quarteron. V. aussi Hybride; batârd. ◇ Ant. Pur.

---

Devrim Karahasan’s ‘’Métissage in New France and Canada’’ (1508-1886) Thesis published in 2006.

p. 189 : At the same time, the term ‘’metis’’ had further variants that ranged from ‘’mestif’’ or ‘’mestive’’ in 1702, 1708, 1727 and 1732 in Furetière, and in 1704, 1721, 1732, 1740, 1743, 1752 and 1771 in Trévoux, to ‘’mestice’’ or ‘’metice’’ in 1743 ann 1752 in the same dictionary [Trévoux]. Cblambert (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

p. 183 : Citing The Métis Nation, Ottawa : Metis National Council, Fall 1984, p. 6 : Written with a small ‘m’, metis is a racial term for anyone of mixed Indian and European ancestry. Written with a capital ‘M’, Metis is a socio-cultural or political term for those originally of mixed ancestry who evolved into a distinct indigeonous people during a certain period in a certain region in Canada. Cblambert (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Devrim Karahasan’s ‘’Métissage in New France and Canada Revisited’’ (1508-1886) Essay about thesis published 12 years later (in 2018), including to "correct some factual mistakes" in the original thesis.

Karahasan’s revisiting essay is reassuring in light of this admission of correction to some factual mistakes that I'd noted in terms of "filles du roi" dates , his describing Crowfoot as an Iroquois, and so on. Cblambert (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Distant ancestry?

I would like to either delete the following sentence, or modify it: " People with more distant ancestry are not part of the Métis ethnicity or culture.". It could perhaps be modified to "Some people with distant indigenous ancestors might not identify as Métis." I'm not sure what "distant ancestry" means anyway, as everyone has distant ancestors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to modify the wording, sources added. I can add more if need be. Being Metis is being part of the culture and community, having the community claim you not the other way around. If I were to have distant heritage from Scotland, let's say from the 1600s, that would not make me Scottish. I would simply have a many times great grandparent who married into a different nationality and eventually I became what I am today which is defined by culture and community as well as sovereignty and politics. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I'm fine with leaving it as it is, if you prefer. Thanks for adding sources! Alternatively, if you're interested we could discuss possibly changing it to be clearer or even expanding it to have more info from the sources. Maybe leaving it vague and ambiguous is OK. I don't know whether "distant" means dilute, or far in the past. It could mean only one of someone's 64 great-great-great-great grandparents was Scottish; or it could mean someone who had, say, 40 of the 64 having been Scottish, but the intervening generations did not live in Scotland, speak Gaelic or wear kilts, etc. So that seems to me two different meanings of the word "distant". Also, the article doesn't say more distant than what: how distant? Maybe the two meanings overlap and some vagueness is OK since clearer definitions are determined elsewhere, such as in the internal membership processes of the organizations. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous versus aboriginal

I believe the current commonly used term in Canada is "indigenous", for example by CBC. I'd like to go through the part about Métis in Canada and replace "aboriginal" by "indigenous" whenever it isn't a quote, legal term etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps I'll leave it as-is. "Indigenous" includes Métis; when talking about the ancestry another term is needed, so maybe "aboriginal" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "indigenous". I'm not sure, so perhaps I'll leave it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

legal term spelling

Is this revert [4] of my edit really correct? It says "restore legal term spelling". Where's a source for putting the word "Peoples" after the word "an"? Why was the wikilink removed? Why was "World Council of Indigenous Peoples" changed back to just "World Council of Indigenous" (although there's a "P" in the acronym)? I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain these to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. The World Council of Indigenous Peoples should be spelt out in full and linked. It appears nowhere else in the article but does require a citation. The legal term spelling is now sourced and does not use capitals and uses the wording in the source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Double indentation in Supreme Court quote

A quote from the Supreme Court contains two paragraphs, the second indented further than the first. Presumably this is because the Supreme Court themselves were quoting someone else who authored the second paragraph. Who was being quoted? Presumably the Supreme Court indicated somehow who they were quoting. I think this Wikipedia article should also indicate somehow who was the author of the second paragraph. We could indicate it by saying something like "The Supreme Court, including a quote of ... wrote:" ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I found the citation for the second paragraph and put it in the footnote. I might come back later and format it better. 64.228.74.8 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This citation needs to be reviewed to make sure it adequately cites the content, and the citations placed immediately after the quotes they cite, not in the preceding text. If they can't be confirmed to accurately cite the preceding text the quotes cannot be kept. This article needs a lot of cleanup, and those quotes and cites more than a bit confusing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Change to Métis Page

The Métis (/meɪˈtiː(s)/ may-TEE(S); Canadian French: [metis]) are Indigenous peoples who inhabit Canada's three Prairie Provinces, as well as parts of British Columbia, Ontario, the Northwest Territories, and the Northern United States.[

206.223.163.58 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by IPs, SPAs and the insertion of "Ontario"

While certainly not a flurry or edit war, I'm finding the chronic, ongoing addition of unsourced and inaccurate content by IPs and WP:SPAs tiresome and annoying. Does anyone else feel like semi-protection is warranted? If requested, I can push the buttons. But only if others agree, as I've also edited here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. I was going to revert the recent changes but got distracted. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan I support semi-protection. It will hopefully encourage those users to use the talk page rather than adding unsourced/inaccurate material. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Per usual, if anyone has issues with this, ping me here or feel free to take it up at WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Could we get semi-protection please? This is continuing to be a problem. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it would be better for another admin to do it as I've been editing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Lets read the article or do basic research before reverting. Have been dealing with this "race murder" on Wikipedia for years. " The Manitoba Métis Federation promotes a concept of a Métis Nation that is limited to areas associated with the former Rupert’s Land and Red River settlements, excluding the possibility of “new” Métis communities elsewhere in the country." Christopher Adams; Gregg Dahl; Ian Peach, eds. (14 August 2013). Métis in Canada: History, Identity, Law and Politics. University of Alberta. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-88864-718-4. OCLC 1138987137. We should not be carrying this article in a direction that many referred to as "racist and discriminatory"...Moxy- 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: you seem to be doing a lot of edits advocating for the Métis Nation of Ontario. Do you have a connection to this group? Implying that cited sources and editors are "racist" or committing "race murder" for discussing the many issues with that group, such as being called out by the National Council for being "90% non-Métis", among other things, is highly inappropriate. Indigenous identity is based in citizenship, not race. I'm not sure a general encyclopedia should be used to replace more specialized sources, and ongoing consensus here is to not include Ontario in the lede. The only user or users repeatedly putting the Ontario in the lede before you, at least in recent months, have been IP vandals, that I recall. So, like others here, I am going to revert your change. I strongly suggest you do not imply that other editors are "racist", or committing "race murder", for citing reliable sources, especially when they are members in good standing of the Indigenous editing pool here on the 'pedia. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed CorbieVreccan. This page should describe the contentions between different groups that use the term but it should not be used to advance the POV of one group over another, especially new groups that are not as widely recognized by other groups. And we shouldn't be accusing the Manitoba Métis Federation of advancing a racist agenda. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy where do you get this accusation of race murder when being Metis is political rather than racial? The criteria to be considered Metis is pretty cut and dry, you can't magically become a new Metis community elsewhere in the country. Metis are regionally specific and must meet other criteria as well. There is nothing racist or discriminatory about being factual. There have been ongoing legacy issues regarding citizenship. That is not the fault of anyone outside of MNO, that is the fault of MNO. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I also just checked, and the "encyclopedia" Moxy is inserting in various places is actually an opinion piece. So, not RS at all. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

From Metis in Canada: History Identity Law and Politics pages 6-7 which Moxy has posted the link to above

"Peterson argues,"thus, when contemporary scholars embrace terms such as the Ontario Metis Nation and conciously translate nineteenth-century English-language terms like Half-breeds or mixed-bloods from the documentary record into the politicized French-language term Metis (as in Metis Nation), they change the intended meanings of the original writers and of the terms themselves. Whatever the intent, the use of Metis in this context has implanted Metis communities, Metis identity, and Metis political conciousness into regions and times where they did not exist before."

I think this is pretty clear and comes from a source which they themselves provided. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If that's not in the MNO article, it probably belongs there. I know Peterson is cited. There was some very confusing stuff sourced to Peterson and some other authors that I tried to clarify. I'd appreciate you taking a look at it if you have a chance. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it. I'll at least check if it's there. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't belive what I am seeing "regionally specific". Find it very odd that self identity and government recognition is being ignored. Didn't call anyone anything this is what the sources said. So how can we fix this problem? Why type of sources should we use? Thus far the lead has a dead source and 2 that cover Ontario .... The Métis (/meɪˈtiː(s)/ may-TEE(S); Canadian French: [metis]) are Indigenous peoples who inhabit Canada's three Prairie Provinces, as well as parts of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and the Northern United States. . Has anyone here looked at Upper Great Lakes Métis?. Don't you find it odd the same edit has been trying to been inserted over and over..... calling in vandalism is clearly wrong when there's a multitude of sources..... even sources explaining the problem.

• Reimer, Gwen; Chartrand, Jean-Philippe (Jul 1, 2004). "Documenting Historic Métis in Ontario". Ethnohistory. 51 (3). Duke University Press: 567–607. doi:10.1215/00141801-51-3-567. ISSN 0014-1801.
• Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3. Retrieved Dec 2, 2022.
• Peters, Evelyn; Rosenberg, Mark; Halseth, Greg (Jan 1, 1991). "The Ontario Métis : characteristics and identity". Handle Proxy. Retrieved Dec 2, 2022.
• Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3. Retrieved Dec 2, 2022.Moxy- 22:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I also replied over on the Metis Nation of Ontario talk page, but briefly, the settler-colonial courts systems, professors and authors are not the final authority here. We must take into account the consensus of established, intact, Indigenous communities and community leaders, notably those of the Métis themselves. The sources in the article for actual Métis people in any part of Ontario are for small parts of Northwest Ontario, not the entire region, and the reliable sources don't support the new groups that are allowing self-Indigenization. Small parts of the region are not enough to simply put "Ontario" in the lede; that would be misleading. The areas that are the exception are covered in the footnotes and further down in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What is missleading is not citing the ref that are right there...its why there is a problem of IPs trying to add what is in the sources they look at. But good to see you agree there is communities in Ontario. Not sure why it would be undue in the lead ... omission is a POV that we should avoid. BC is just as small. We should simply state the facts...because even the Métis National Council that rejects the idea of 'new Ontario Métis agree there is communities in Ontario. Even the Métis homeland released in 2018 by the Manitoba Métis Federation agree part of Ontario- they are the ones that have left the National Council and are in legal action with the Ontario metis, who of cource have a broader view of the area the map should cover like the one the Metis Nation-Saskatchewa use a few years ago . Nations of people dont stop because of Europen man made lines on a map...its all about territory that they say is traditional. As it stand right now the article is bias towards one POV over just being factual and leting the article explain. Its simple odd not to list them when they are in the article ..seen in the TOC etc...I cvould quote many protocals but I know you must know them. have been here very long editing these articles and was one of those that organizing the "group" you keep referring to Moxy- 20:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think that using anything by a certain professor is beneficial. https://buffalochronicle.com/2022/01/26/professors-identity-fraud-reveals-systemic-victimization-of-indigenous-people-in-academia/ Indigenous girl (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, he is trying to push a certain political agenda. If he or his supporters are mentioned in the article it should be contextualized for sure. Although (unfortunately in my opinion) his works do meet the standard of reliable sources in Wikipedia as they are printed by academic presses. But there are many contrary reliable academic sources out there too, not least Leroux who you cited in that link, who has published widely on this matter. Dan Carkner (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone can be published in the academy, but then subsequent scandals can damage, or even totally negate, that credibility and reliability. I think this is one of those cases.

We have seen academic scandals result in the revisiting of sourcing on the 'pedia, including academic frauds that managed to get published, who then tried to use those publications as citespam in the 'pedia to perpetrate a WP:HOAX. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that but I also think some explanation/contextualization in the article may be required given the amount of news attention that type of approach takes up, and the resulting traffic drive to this article by people trying to sort through these matters. Dan Carkner (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Will start an RFC in the next few days. Not understanding why the sources in the article are not regurgitated or the definitions used by the community itself or academics is used. Giving heads up.....so others can find rebuttal sources. Moxy- 20:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

I notice a new round of edits with https://www.metisnation.org/ as the source for the addition of new statements. Not taking a position on any of the specific additions but considering the ongoing unresolved disputes about this article and the matter of Ontario I believe third-party sources should be preferred if possible. --Dan Carkner (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, new user Section35rightsholder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a number of edits, some of it to add non-neutral text sourced solely to that site. I've removed the statements about Métis Nation of Ontario that are sourced solely to their own website. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We have very few new indigenous editors because this keeps happening. Gave a welcome and notice for the new guy. Moxy- 01:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Froh quote not in cited text

@Section35rightsholder: The quote you added[5] is not in the cited article. Is this quote somewhere in the embedded video? If so, please use the AV media template and include a timestamp. Copying here:

On March 22nd 2022, in response to David Chartrand's comments on MNO suspension, President Margaret Froh stated her position that "The MNO was never suspended, the MNO was on probation and there was a decision by just a few individuals declaring that the MNO was suspended when in fact that wasn't correct and in fact we (MNO) went to court and the court concluded we were not suspended."

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

More effort needed before removal ...3:16 would be a good stating point for the video or as per the source in the above section. Moxy- 02:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ward, Dennis (2022-03-22). "Métis National I agree with Moxy 3:16 would work. Council moving forward says MNO president". APTN News. Retrieved 2023-02-09. Section35rightsholder (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC Ontario

Resolved

Should the lead list Ontario as mentioned in the article and sources in the lead?

• Métis historic homeland extends into “much of the three prairie provinces, west into northern British Columbia, east into parts of Ontario, north into the Northwest Territories, and south into Montana and North Dakota.Moxy- 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• By Lawrence J. Barkwell

• By Nathalie Kermoal -professor of Native Studies -University of Alberta

• By Dwight Newman - pofessor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan

• By Mark L. Stevenson - President of the Indigenous Bar Association

• By John Weinstein, senior policy advisor for the Metis National Council.

• By Jean Teillet adjunct professor -UBC Faculty of Law -great-grandniece of Louis Riel and an Indigenous rights lawyer

• Adams Peach Dahl Bell

• By Métis Nation of Alberta

• By Métis Nation—Saskatchewan

• By Metis National Council

• By Martha Harroun Foster - assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University
• By David Chartrand

• By Truth and Reconciliation Commission
• By United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
• By Government of Canada

• By Rupertsland Institute

• By Canadian Geographic

References

Why is Ontario not in the lead anymore?

Moxy's view...

We have a rise in Eastern metis self identifying, including in Eastern Ontario - Southern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada (that should be mentioned in the article but thats another debate) Thus we have a debate of who is really Metis/metis however Northwestern Ontario has always been part of the "Metis homeland narrative" as stated by both sides of the debate (as seen by the sources above and below) and as per R v Powley.

Sources about the debate:

• "Métis National Council rejects idea of new Ontario Métis communities after 2nd identity forum - CBC News". CBC. 2020-02-09. Retrieved 2022-12-10.
• "Who is a Métis? is not a simple question". winnipegsun. 2022-06-18. Retrieved 2022-12-10.
• "The controversial rise of the eastern Metis: 'Where were these people all this time?' - CBC News". CBC. 2018-06-29. Retrieved 2022-12-10.

This debate of the BIG M (socio-political definition) vs small m ( a racial category) is long running long before the current rise in Eastern metis self identifying, but has never rejected Northwestern Ontario claims of Metis homeland.

• "Identity". Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-12-10.
• "You're Métis? So which of your parents is an Indian?". âpihtawikosisân. 2011-12-20. Retrieved 2022-12-10.
• "Distinguishing "Métis" from "métis" in the Chinook Jargon world". Chinook Jargon. 2021-07-28. Retrieved 2022-12-10.

Survey

• Support (RFC proposer) sources are clear.Moxy- 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per reasons and sourcing given by Moxy. Sixula^Talk 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the sources, only a small part of Ontario, the Northwest corner, has actual Métis people. The others in Ontario are generally recent, self-indigenized groups and individuals, some of whom are quite problematic, and who have tried to use the 'pedia for self-promotion. Please read the discussion above:#Ongoing disruption by IPs, SPAs and the insertion of "Ontario". This small region of Ontario is already addressed and sourced in the body of the article, but to put it in the lede, implying the entire province is of the same significance to this population as the others, is undue weight. We have longstanding consensus to keep it out. Usually it's IP vandals trying to add it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yup you re correct many IPs (or vandals in your words) and others keep adding Ontario because its right there in the sources beside the statement along with other regions with small poipulations, thus the wording choice. "Métis Nation". Library Archives Canada. 15 October 2013. - "Métis Homeland". Rupertsland Institute. Retrieved 2021-07-24. - "Métis > Identity". Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved March 13, 2022. You sure your neutral on this topic?Moxy- 19:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per CorbieVreccan and previous discussion mentioned above. The introduction of Ontario seems to be not only about the settlements mentioned in the RFC here but in the wider context of the nominator's past comments, to expand the definition of Métis to include the other groups mentioned in the above discussion. The fact that this RFC has been carefully tailored does not change that context in my opinion. --Dan Carkner (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Tryng to put it back in the article as it was for a decade and as per the sources. Not trying to add quebec of atlantic Canada to the ledd just restore the old norm and what sources say..any sources say otherwise?.Moxy- 19:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  The extent to which it exists in Ontario is fine to mention later in the article in my opinion but that it gives it undue importance to have it in the introductory sentence. We as editors have the ability to decide how a topic is portrayed based on context, and again your past comments about "race murder" and citation of Seb Malette which you have studiously avoided mentioning here should be factored into this. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Ontario is too large to insert it without some modifier stating how little of the province is included in traditional Métis territory. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) I see multiple references to the inclusion of parts of Ontario in the sources shown above, which I believe to be reliable. DonFB (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that the limited portion of Ontario where the Metis homeland exists, including the entire province is deceptive. There is also context missing in the RFC which Dan Carkner mentions above and this needs to be noted. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Individual Métis people live all over the place, but in the lede only the core of Métis homelands should be mentioned. Perhaps clarify this in the first sentence by changing "Indigenous peoples who inhabit..." to "Indigenous people whose core historical homelands are..." or something similiar. Yuchitown (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

  This is a good clarification, I've been thinking of something along this line as well. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support Sections of Ontario have long been considered part of the Métis homelands. The MNC supports the inclusion of certain sections of Ontario through the MNO. The definition of the homeland is not, as much as we would like to be otherwise, a hard border that can be referred to with such certainty. Ontario should be included. It is also false to claim that all communities outside of a small area of the northwest of the province is merely recent self-indiginizing people. Sault Sainte Marie has a well-documented and longstanding "half-breed" community. However, I grant it is also challenging and problematic to include the entire province. It would be better if the lede could be nuanced to indicate the variability or some fuzziness of the border (and I stress this is not to include Quebec or Atlantic provinces.) Given the the role of MNC and the recognition of the MNO by the MNA and others I think it should be perfectly reasonable to take this course in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles can and do present a wider-scale view. It is not "false" to include Ontario.Smallison (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is an excellent paper on how some of the communities under the MNO heading are not in fact true Metis communities along with some excellent sources included in the body https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/mmf-report-update-october-2020-adese-leroux-otoole-.pdf Does this mean there are absolutely no authentic Metis communities in Ontario? No. But with the level of neo-Metis to tradition Metis it becomes highly problematic. I feel that it is important to address the legitimate communities in the body however if the intro were to mention Ontario or northwest Ontario with no disclaimer, it legitimizes the fetis groups. I do appreciate you not supporting any inclusion of Quebec or the maritimes (even though it is not up for debate). Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support If the body of the article says that the Métis extend into Ontario, then the lede should reflect that in its list/series of provinces. MOS:LEAD Kerdooskis (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per sources that come from a variety of experts.104.192.232.40 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the main issue seems to be that the inclusion of "Ontario" in the lead would be misleading as in fact the part of the historical Métis homeland that overlaps with the contemporary borders of Ontario is relatively small, and the inclusion of the whole province would lead people to think that the homeland extends to Cornwall. The first sentence of the article has space for specifying that it's only part of Ontario, though-- in fact, it already does it for BC, NWT, and the Northern United States. Why not add "Ontario" to the list after "parts of...the Northern United States"?James Hyett (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Much has been made in the discussion below about Moxy's own presumed and known political positions. But looking just at the original RFC proposal, they did suggest including the verbiage "parts of Ontario". In no way does that wording suggest the inclusion of the entire province of Ontario, unless the current inclusion of "parts of British Columbia" is understood to mean that the Métis homeland extends to Haida Gwaii. I understand that Moxy has made political comments before that colour this particular RFC, but I don't understand how including the specific wording "parts of Ontario" gives undue weight, more than the other "parts of" that are listed in the present article. James Hyett (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

    Not sure how many times I have to say this ...the racial comments are by scholars... I'm just regurgitating them... perhaps I've listed too many sources.. read me. That understood... all scholars agree there is a debate about new Métis identity...but they all agree there are historical Métis communities in western Ontario. For some odd reason how the sources represent the groups are being ignored. Pretendian is a problem but it's not up to editors too misrepresent the sources by omission. I agree there may be a political agenda here as seen with edits of this nature. Exclusionism is not a good way for.Moxy- 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks Moxy - I did not mean to accuse you or anyone else of espousing any political position one way or the other. In fact, I'd like to get the conversation away from that, as most of the opposing editors are using ad hominem arguments that don't actually address the initial proposal, i.e. the inclusion of the phrase "east into parts of Ontario". @CorbieVreccan: any thoughts on my comments above? James Hyett (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - in addition to my comment above about the fallacious "undue weight" argument, I've just taken a look at the sources currently cited at the end of the statement that is in question and... they all refer to parts of Ontario as constituent to the Métis homeland. I don't know why this is up for debate. James Hyett (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Here's an overview source of the problem.... that some pick a side with over explaining...this resulting in the omission of groups of people in many articles dispite legal recognition because of the unfounded rejection of sources from certain groups like the MNO and Goverment of Ontario and Canada......as see Talk:Mattawa, Ontario#Why are we not explaining the Metis situation? . Adam Gaudry. “Communing with the Dead: The ‘New Métis,’ Métis Identity Appropriation, and the Displacement of Living Métis Culture.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 2018, pp. 162–90. JSTOR A side is being picked forming a huge bias across many articles. Moxy- 17:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

We should not be omiting a whole area because of a debate between to organizations - let alone picking a side that even says " Métis extends to parts of northwestern Ontario, including the regions around Kenora and Fort Frances"."Métis National Council rejects idea of new Ontario Métis communities after 2nd identity forum - CBC News". CBC. 2020-02-09. Retrieved 2022-12-10. Metis in the residential school system of Ontario should not omitted because of a rise in self identifying in the eastern part of the province. Briggs, David (2022-09-30). "Métis peoples also suffered residential school system". BayToday.ca. Retrieved 2022-12-10.Moxy- 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And the content you cite is already in the article. It just doesn't need to be used in a fashion that could be misinterpreted. Your "debate between to organizations" comment seems to be a reference to your advocacy for the Métis Nation of Ontario, and your accusations that some of us must work for a Métis org that has spoken out against them. As you have been advocating for the self-indigenized groups to be misrepresented, and written about as having the same status as the actual Métis people, I suspect your accusations are projection. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You're free to have your own POV and to try to discredit me over the sources. Is there anyway you can rebut the sources - I gave you a week or to do so? Moxy- 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In the initial discussion, Indigenous girl, and others, and I pointed out that you misrepresented the sources that are OK - they don't say what you seem to think they say - and that you suggested others that are not RS, including one by someone who looks to be also engaging in fraud. That's why I referred people to the previous discussion, instead of engaging in going round and round in what may be an attempt to simply wear editors out. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources are all there for all to see. ..never said any were not reliable. Still not sure why an article by Denis Gagnon is so offensive to you...thus why i presented many more sources. Why not simply say " Northwestern Ontario " ..in my view its simply odd that omitting is your POV on this over accuracy or regurgitating the sources.Moxy- 20:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not communicating clearly. Use complete sentences if you want editors here to be able to understand you. This is why it's essential to read what happened here and not your misrepresentations. For you to say we "never said any [sources you posted] were not reliable", is either WP:GASLIGHTING or you didn't read the discussion. Just a few of the Diffs: Not RS, Not beneficial, and the source doesn't say what you claimed it did. Either way, it's inappropriate and disruptive. The consensus was clear. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup the academic consensus is clear for all to see. Suggesting we don't use academic sourced is absurd. Lucky this isn't a problem normally.Moxy- 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope folks are reading the talk page and are actually reviewing content. OP provided Metis in Canada: History Identity Law and Politics page 6 as an argument for inclusion however the passage from Peterson reads- "thus, when contemporary scholars embrace terms such as the Ontario Metis Nation and conciously translate nineteenth-century English-language terms like Half-breeds or mixed-bloods from the documentary record into the politicized French-language term Metis (as in Metis Nation), they change the intended meanings of the original writers and of the terms themselves. Whatever the intent, the use of Metis in this context has implanted Metis communities, Metis identity, and Metis political conciousness into regions and times where they did not exist before." also included were sources by individuals who have been exposed as frauds https://buffalochronicle.com/2022/01/26/professors-identity-fraud-reveals-systemic-victimization-of-indigenous-people-in-academia/ such as

·Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3

·Bouchard, M.; Malette, S.; Pulla, S.; Elsey, C.; Gagnon, D.; MacLeod, K.K.; Mager, T.; Marcotte, G.; Michaux, E.; Lawless, J.A.M. (2021). Eastern Métis: Chronicling and Reclaiming a Denied Past. Lexington Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-7936-0544-3

This is extremely problematic and to me appears to contribute to a bias toward groups that are not a part of the traditional Metis homeland.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Not all "academics" are supportive of Indigenous people and Indigenous self-determination. When someone is privileging the voices of academics who support settler self-indigenization, or who are self-indigenized themselves, this is a problem. The Métis are a recognized Indigenous people. Indigenous people define who Indigenous people are, not non-Indigenous people who happen to be in Academia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, that's not what I said. You're trolling now. Stop it. The consensus on talk, not your fabricated, misrepresented POV push of "academic consensus" based on colonial, problematic, non-RS "sources", many of which don't even mention the Métis peoples. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, I will explain why Gagnon is problematic. Metis are a distinct Peoples with community connections, language, culture etc. He claims that folks from communities that include mine have a Metis history. That simply isn't true. During the historical period, there were folks who intermarried with white people and the children were still considered members of the community because we are matriarchal and matrilinial. If those children remained in community their children and their children's children and so forth would continue to remain members of community. If they chose to leave the community and assimilate then at some point their descendants were no longer recognized because they were no longer known by the community. Those who intermarried did not create a distinct community, They either stayed or they left. Those that stayed and continued to remain are still members of community. Those that did not are members of the dominant culture. An individual with a root ancestor from the 1600s is simply a member of the dominant culture who had an Indigenous ancestor from a very long time ago. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Gagnon has no business redefining Indigeneity for living cultures. It's colonialism on his part. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Good talking about 2 sources of many ,,::Page 367 ..Adams, C.; Peach, I.; Dahl, G.; Bell, G.; Campbell, G.; Dubois, J.; Flanagan, T.; Haggarty, L.; Kearns, L.L.; O'Toole, D. (2013). Métis in Canada: History, Identity, Law and Politics. University of Alberta Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-88864-640-8. Retrieved Dec 4, 2022. But lets talk about .. Dr. Malette Moxy- 16:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What is there to talk about? He's harmful to the actual FNIM and Native people when he comes out with quotes like - "We fall into the somewhat overly romantic idea of ​​community. This is to think that indigenous experience and community norms are homogeneous." Community has always been central to identity. For him to swoop in and redefine what makes one indigenous is, well, very colonial.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup he talks about Quebec and the atlantic provinces but as seen he's like all the others in saying parts of Ontario are not in dispute. He does go on to say he thinks other areas should be a homeland but they aren't recognized.Moxy- 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

And again, editors already responded to you about Malette in the initial discussion, on Dec 3: Problematic source. Which I reminded you of yesterday: Don't misrepresent the previous discussion. Here's the direct link to article about Malette, first posted here by Indigenous girl on talk on Dec 3: Professor’s identity fraud reveals systemic victimization of indigenous people in academia. These are the kinds of "sources" Moxy is promoting here. And demanding people discuss, after they've already been discussed, pretending we haven't been over this all already. This is disruptive, Moxy. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any source pls. Moxy- 20:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you a bot? Sources for what specifically? Indigenous girl (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we not be adhering to the Wikipedia principles? Specifically WP:5? Neutral point of view? And presenting multiple points of view where necessary? MNC specifically states Métis in Ontario. As for the disputed communities there is recognition through other Mètis organization, and historically by some First Nations, the government of Ontario and a Federal MOU with MNO representing disputed and non disputed communities. Section35rightsholder (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V we can't use the MNO website as the sole source for claims about themselves. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You know full well that the courts ruled they were never suspended and that the MNO has support from MNBC, the MNA, the MNS and is participating fully in the MNC and is why MMF chose to leave the MNC. [6]. What your pushing here is a non-neutral evaluation of the situation... giving undue emphasis to the point of view of the Manitoba Metis Federation and the former president of the MNC being sued by MNC, over the POV of all others....even going so fat as to remove mention of the MNO in articles and templates. Moxy- 00:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling for RS sources is WP 101 and hardly controversial. It would go better for you if you don't attempt to tell editors what you think they do and don't "know full well". Your obsession with the imagined motives of editors here is inappropriate. You are once again casting aspersions and implying motives and agendas where there are none. Again, I think this is projection on your part. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Source above and facts are facts. Moxy- 01:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Should simply define the homeland as set out by the Metis themselves .....no word play or omissions. "In 2002, the Métis General Council defined the “historic Métis Nation Homeland” as the area of land in central North America including the 3 Prairie provinces, extending into Ontario, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and the northern United States, from Ohio to Montana.""About Us". Métis National Council. Retrieved 2023-02-13. Moxy- 04:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Historic is not the same as contemporary. This could cause eal confusion. At this point I'm personally willing to concede with including 'northwest Ontario' in order to stop the bickering and the additional work this whole issue is creating. While I'm not pleased with the casting of aspersions, the SPA activity, and general hostility displayed, the horse is beyond dead, it's splattered all over the pedia. It's a shame that this could not have been discussed in a more amicable manner. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "...historical homelands included parts of northwest Ontario"? Yuchitown (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Andersen, C. (2014). Métis: Race, Recognition, and the Struggle for Indigenous Peoplehood. UBC Press - Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research in the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-7748-2723-2. The MNC's narrative traces the geographical boundaries of what it terms the "Métis Homeland" to the historical waterways from northern Ontario to British Columbia and from the Northwest Territories to the northern United States. Moxy- 20:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"...historical homelands included parts of northwest Ontario" would be acceptable. But not this endless attempt to force people to restate their positions, hoping to wear us down. That's not how consensus works and it's not good wikiprocess, at all. I second what Indigenous girl said. The refusal to accept consensus, the WP:BADGERING and casting of WP:ASPERSIONS here has been really over the top, along with the weird edits by new WP:SPAs that are really not up to snuff, but that we have users wanting to edit war to preserve. Just a mess. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Metis

metis in the provinsis 2001:569:505B:400:6BC4:E416:9078:7B98 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)