Talk:First Nations in Canada

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 21 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisonheck21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The First Nations article needs to be revised

The article on First Nations is inaccurate. It focuses on information that is not relevant to the topic.

There is far more relevant information about First Nations then the Bering Strait Theory, the Paleo-Indians and Archaic periods in Canada and early Canadian History. All of which is covered over and over again in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia. People need to begin to see the Indigenous people of the Americas as people who still exist and live in a modern world, and stop viewing them as people of the past. Niineta (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct I have removed it as its all covered (the same wording) in the main article.Moxy (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As the text has been reverted since November 2, 2011, the concept/definition of First Nations still needs to be identified.

Unlike the article previously stated First Nations is NOT an "ethnicity". It's a political structure. The term First Nations was coined in the early 1980s by The "Assembly of First Nations" (AFN). Prior to the formation of the AFN there was no such term as First Nations. First Nations has no legal definition as does the term "Indian" under the "Indian Act".

Actually it is a ethnicity but I change it - Statistics Canada has been tracking Canada 's Aboriginal peoples for many years through the census ethnic origin question]. and is relefted in the recent change of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada title.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, First Nations is not an ethnicity. Canada Census uses the term "Aboriginal Identity" to determine which of the (4) "Aboriginal Groups" (As define by the 1982 Constitution Act) a person may identify with.

The AANDC name change was to better reflect the scope of the department's mandate which not only includes "Indians" but also the Metis and the Inuit populations and the North.

First Nations ethnicity is defined by their Nation (tribal descent) eg. Haida, Blackfoot, Cree, Mohawk. Mi'kmaq, etc. Neither the Canada Census nor AANDC uses "First Nations" or "Aboriginal" to indicate ethnicity. Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The AFN was formed to unite all First Nations (Indian) governments across Canada to advocate for the inclusion of the First Nations concerns in the formation of the Constitution. During that process the government defined the term "Aboriginal".

Sounds good - We can add -"The Assembly was organized so as to be accountable to all First Nations in Canada. The new structure was formally adopted in July 1985, as part of the Charter of the Assembly of First Nations."

•The AFN was not organized to be accountable to First Nations. The AFN was organized to enable First Nations to respond "in unity with a single voice" to "governmental policies" through an "Assembly" of "First Nations Leadership". Hence the name "Assembly of First Nations" (meaning - the Chiefs/Leadership in Assembly). Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree- this is why removed it as it the individual tribes that matter [1]

Unlike popular usage Aboriginal is not interchangeable with First Nations. The legal definition of Aboriginal is defined in the Constitution. Aboriginal is defined as a term which collectively includes "Indian", "Metis" and the "Inuit". Because Aboriginal has been assigned a "legal" definition in the Constitution, Unlike in the rest of the world, "Aboriginal" does not mean Indigenous.

Are you sure the ref says other wise ... The category "North American Indian" includes respondents who indicated that their ethnic origins were from a Canadian First Nation, or another, non-Canadian aboriginal group (excluding Inuit and Métis). Source: "How Statistics Canada Identifies Aboriginal Peoples". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2011-01-16.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

EXCERPT

It was not until the 1980's that Statistics Canada began to ask a specific question about Aboriginal identity. Statistics Canada collects information about "Aboriginal identity" in keeping with the terminology of Aboriginal peoples as employed in the Constitution Act, 1982 (S.35(2) in this Act, "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

"Aboriginal group", i.e., North American Indian, Métis or Inuit, "those who reported being a Registered Indian or Treaty Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada". This statement specifically singles out the "First Nations". (as the Registered/Status and Treaty Indians). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-592-x/12-592-x2007001-eng.htm

In 1996 more new questions were added including Aboriginal identity. History of the Census of Canada - http://census2011.gc.ca/ccr01/ccr01_007-eng.htm

The term "Aboriginal" was first defined in the 1982 Constitution Act. Prior to that it did not exist, (with the current meaning) in canadian usage. The term " Aboriginal identity" was not in use until 1996. In Canada, both "Aboriginal" and "First Nations" have "specific definitions" and as a result they are NOT interchangeable. Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying here - Aboriginals are not Indigenous ? and where does it say they are interchangeable?Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is pointless information. this information belongs in the Employment Equity Act information/article and serves no purpose here.

First Nations are not a "designated group" - Aboriginal peoples are the "designated group" (Aboriginal peoples = Indian (Status/Non-Status) Metis and the Inuit.)

Are you sure What are the designated groups?.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Under the Employment Equity Act, First Nations are a "designated group", along with women, visible minorities, and persons with physical or mental disabilities.[5] They are not defined as a visible minority under the Act or by the criteria of Statistics Canada.[6]

Whats wrong with these facts - are they not true?Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• As already stated, "Aboriginal peoples" are the "designated group" NOT "First Nations". It's like saying "Irish women" are the designated group. No they are not "Women" are the designated group. Secondly, Why is this information included? Is there a plan to elaborate on this information? Such as a section to indicate if the Employment Equity Act has proven to be beneficial or not for First Nations people. As it stands now it's simply filler text. (English 101) Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok so are you saying you would like us to change the word "First Nations" to "Aboriginal peoples"? As for its usage - its a very interesting fact. Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This information is total gibberish.

First Nations have "always" referred to themselves by their particular ethnicity (It's not a more recent trend) Very few ever identify themselves as First Nations. That term is used in the political/government arena and in the media. Who (by the way) incorrectly uses Aboriginal 99% of the time when referring to First Nations. When in fact the Metis and the Inuit have nothing to do with the Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, the reserve system, taxation, the Indian Act or related legislation etc. Discussing the term First Nations as plural or single is ridiculous. WTH are culturally politicised reserves?

The term First Nations (most often used in the plural) has come into general use for the indigenous peoples of the Americas located in what is now Canada, except for the Arctic-situated Inuit, and peoples of mixed European-First Nations ancestry called Métis. The singular, commonly used on culturally politicised reserves, is the term First Nations person (when gender-specific, First Nations man or First Nations woman)

A more recent trend is for members of various nations to refer to themselves by their tribal or national identity only, e.g., "I'm Haida," or "We're Kwantlens," in recognition of the distinctiveness of First Nations ethnicities.[7]

Sound ok do you have a references that says that they have always used it - the ref in the article says other wise. I have always had a problem with this section and would love to fix it.Moxy (talk)

• Well, it's simply common knowledge. There may be references somewhere. But it is mentioned in the following.

Prior to 1951, Canada's Aboriginal people were defined by their "tribal descent" (ethnicity) or their matrilineal (tribal) descent.

This changed between 1951 and 1971 when Aboriginal people were defined by their patrilineal (tribal) descent.

From 1981 to the present, Aboriginal ancestry has been defined by (tribal) descent from both the mother and the father's side. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-592-x/12-592-x2007001-eng.htm

This excerpt is an example of exactly what I said about how "Aboriginal" is used incorrectly 99% of the time. Tribal descent has absolutely no relevance to the Inuit, Metis or the Non-Status Indian "Aboriginal groups". In fact many Metis/Non-status Indians don't know what Tribe/Nation they descend from. It's so far back in their ancestral blood-line. Tribal descent is only relevant for First Nations. It's only the First Nations that have to maintain close blood-ties as an indication of tribal descent. - Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok something is wrong here after reading the above you seem to agree with the statement. That only recently have they been using this form of name recognition -"again" like in the past.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This obviously belong somewhere else (eg under History) and has no relevance here.

North American indigenous peoples have cultures spanning thousands of years. Some of their oral traditions accurately describe historical events, such as the Cascadia Earthquake of 1700. Written records began with the arrival of European explorers and colonists during the Age of Discovery, beginning in the late 15th century.[8][9] European accounts by trappers, traders, explorers, and missionaries give important evidence of early contact culture.[10] In addition, archeological and anthropological research, as well as linguistics, have helped scholars piece together understanding of ancient cultures and historic peoples.

Whats wrong with this? leads are to summarize the article - you think its best we move it or you think its wrong? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead sectionMoxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, I don't think its wrong. I simply think it should be included elsewhere. "leads are to summarize the article". . . Does it? I think that's my issue. Who exactly is this article about? Is it about the "First Nations", or about "Aboriginal people"? They are not one and the same. Or is it simply Canadian history with some reference to North American Indians? Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be honest it needs fixing - but its a much better lead then a long winded First Nations definition. 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Moxy (talk)

This is a POV

Although not without conflict or slavery, Euro-Canadians' early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively noncombative compared to the often violent battles between colonists and native peoples in the United States. Combined with later economic development, this relatively noncombative history has allowed First Nations peoples to have a strong influence on the national culture, while preserving their own identities.[11]Niineta (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again whats wrong with this?? - you disagree with the refs? - do you believe there was lots of conflict and that First Nations have had little influence on Canadian culture and identity?Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well it's nice "feel good" rhetoric. I'd hardly say "First Nations" peoples had a strong influence on the national culture, since they were excluded from Canadian society and economy for more than 150 years. It's only since the 1970's that the "First Nations" (Status/Treaty Indians) have achieved any inclusion in Canadian society through organized representation. Hence the formation of the "Assembly of First Nations". From that time to the present day First Nations have had to fight for every basic right taken for granted by other Canadian citizens. If you want to see the reality of what the "First Nations" people face, just go to YouTube and watch it. Then you tell me if it fits the rhetoric. Here are a handfull of titles. . . Blockade on the 117 - part 1, The Ts'Peten Defenders, NITEWATCH part 7, Quebecers Hate us so Much-, As long as the Rivers Flow: Story of the Grassy Narrows, Ts'Peten Defenders - NITEWATCH part 5, OIL ON LUBICON LAND: A PHOTO ESSAY. Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We will have to disagree here - "strong influence on the national culture" - this is clear in the food, place names, sports and art more recently etc.. Would have to see a ref that says other wise. Yes were excluded at times and in certain places but we still have had a great influence on things - especially in the west.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Currently editing this part on being "less combative" myself, shockingly innacurate for such a major page HistVa (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy you might want to see this reply to a post you made a decade ago. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

really has to do with existing indigenous alliances between them that gardnered what happened. Moxy- 19:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

All that said above would love to fix up this article but we realy need references for these positions of yours - as there are refs in the article thus far support the statements that are there.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

•The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) was formed when the 630 First Nations governments amalgamated into a single body. Through amalgamation the AFN moved away from a Regional Representative structure to an "Assembly" of First Nations Government Leaders.

The AFN represents the Status & Treaty Indians (First Nations) and does NOT represent the other 3 Aboriginal groups in Canada. These Aboriginal groups have "National Organizations" that represent them. The National organizations that represent the other Aboriginal groups are:

• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami- is the national representative of the "Inuit" http://www.itk.ca/page/about-itk

• Métis Nation Council - representes the "Métis" Nation nationally and internationally. http://www.metisnation.ca/

• The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples - represents the "Non-Status Indians" interests nationally. http://www.abo-peoples.org/about/structure.html

The question is "Why do the Aboriginal People have 4 separate National organizations to represent them?" The reason is the "Aboriginal groups" are different groups of peoples, who have different histories, different relationships with Canada and different issues and concerns.

(1) The "Inuit" hold title to 40% of Canada's land mass and primarily live in 3 self-governing territories Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador) and Inuvialuit (which remains apart of the Northwest Territories). As a result of resource extraction in their territories, they have revenue-sharing agreements with Canada. The Inuit are taxpaying citizens of Canada and receive their programs and services through their territorial governments. The Inuit are entitled to all currently recognized "Aboriginal Rights" (eg. land title, resource sharing agreements, Canada's obligation to consult etc.)

(2) The "Métis" were recognized as "Aboriginal" for the first time in the 1982 Constitution Act. They are taxpaying citizens of Canada and receive their programs and services through their provincial governments. They have no treaty rights or currently recognized Aboriginal rights.

The "Indians" are divided into 2 distinct groups, the "Status and Treaty Indians" and the "Non-Status Indians"

(3) The "Non-Status Indians" also consist of 2 groups. The first group are the indigenous people who have societies with historical connections to their territories and communities. They hold title to their ancestral land and have no treaties/agreements to share their lands. Many within this group are negotiating with Canada for compensation for the exchange of land. Some within this group have entered into self-government agreements similar to that of the Inuit. Non-Status Indians are not governed by the legislation of the "Indian Act". Like the Inuit they are entitled to all currently recognized "Aboriginal Rights". . . . . The second group consists of the descendants of Status Indians who lost their "Status" for one reason or another, the Metis who have no connection to any Metis community and those who have a family story of indigenous ancestry. This group of people are not recognized as Aboriginal and have NO Aboriginal rights. Their inclusion as Non-Status Indians is purely political. The Non-Status Indians are taxpaying citizens of Canada and receive their programs and services through the provincial governments, with the exception of those Nations that provide services through self-government agreements.

(4) The "Status and Treaty Indians" (First Nations) are the Aboriginal group represented by the "Assembly of First Nations" This is the ONLY group governed by the legislation of the "Indian Act" and are defined as "Indians and were NOT CITIZENS of Canada" under the "Act". This is the only group under the reserve system where by a land base was defined for each band and is held "In Trust" By Canada. This Aboriginal group signed historical treaties/agreements with Great Britain and Canada. The treaties defined the land base, monetary settlements and other sanctions (eg, hunting & fishing rights, etc) as compensation for agreeing to share their ancestral lands with Canada. The monetary settlements are "Held in Trust" by Canada. As a result Canada has a fiduciary responsibility as the "trustee" of their money. The money "Held in Trust" provides programs and services to this group as defined under the "Indian Act". As a result under certain situations (eg. live and work on the reserve) they are not subject to taxation. This is the only Aboriginal group who have both "Treaty and Aboriginal Rights".

In 1951 this Aboriginal group were "retro actively" declared citizens (to the 1940s), provided they met certain requirements. They could be citizens, although they were excluded from all benefits and rights of citizenship, including representation and the right to vote. In 1962, in preparation to legislatively extinguish the legal recognition of this group and Canada's responsibility as defined under the treaties and the Indian Act, they were granted the right to vote and along with that came the right to representation. (which was previously illegal)

The First Nations (Status and Treaty Indians) quickly organized and representative organizations were established (on a regional basis) across the country. The first issue that was dealt with was Canada's attempt to extinguish the legal recognition and rights of this group. (White Paper, 1969) They were successful in defeating Canada's attempt to extinguish their recognition and rights. (Citizen Plus, the "Red Paper")

Two pressing issues the fledgling First Nation's organizations had to addressed was "Child Welfare" and "Education". Major action was taken to influence legislation to stop the widespread removal and adoption of First Nations children off the reserves (60s scoop). The second was what could be termed the first (First Nation's) "National policy" and the policy came to be known as "Indian Control of Indian Education". Under this policy the First Nations worked to gain control of the management of their local schools and to establish post-secondary "culturally relevant" programs to train First Nations teachers and social workers to meet the needs of their people. Many other issues were also addressed, such as insuring access to programs and services available to other Canadians. (eg. health care, employment services, etc}.

An attempt was made to merge all regional "organizations" in hopes of achieving better management and eliminate duplication of effort. To this end, all 4 "Aboriginal groups" merged but, soon found the organization could not address the needs of such widely diverse groups. As each Aboriginal group explored the alternatives, Canada began the process to patriate the Constitution.

To ensure the First Nations would not be legislatively extinguished through the Constitutional process, the First Nations quickly restructured a strong "existing" regional organization to unite all First Nations Leadership, and the "Assembly of First Nations" was established in 1982, to address this concern.

Because the Status/Treaty Indians (First Nations) have only been apart of Canadian society for such a short time and have had to deal with such widespread issues. The Assembly of First Nations appears to the public as the governmental arm of the First Nations. But, like the other Aboriginal "Representative" Organizations, the Assembly of First Nation's role is to be an "advocate" on behalf of all First Nations and is their "Public/Political voice".

I provided this information to explain who the "First Nations" are.

The First Nations are the "Status/Treaty Indians" as stated on the "Assembly of First Nations" website.

The First Nations are "Aboriginal" as defined in the Canadian "Constitution Act, 1982"

The First Nations are "Indians" as defined by the "Indian Act", therefore they are "North American Indians".

On the other hand, "North American Indians", "Non-Status Indians" and other Canadian "Aboriginals are NOT First Nations. Niineta (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All this above looks good lets get it referenced and added in.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence Against Indigenous Women

The Canadian state has premised it's sovereignty on the erasure of Indigenous womanhood. This has been maintained through: the structured violence of the residential school system, legislative violence found in discriminatory policy such as the Indian Act, and is reinforced by media such as mainstream news stories. Pre-contact Indigenous societies within Canada maintained equality between woman, man, child and all life forms on the planet. This equality brought harmony to Indigenous communities and there was a common belief that disruption of this harmony would bring distortion within community. Anderson (2000 58) argues that when European settlers arrived within the territory they were shocked by the power that Native women held within their socio-political systems of governance. The equality of Indigenous women with men ran in direct contrast to European patriarchal norms. European settlers recognized that in order to establish a sovereign state, they would first have to dismantle the power that Indigenous women held within their societies. An example of legislative violence against Indigenous women was found in the Indian Act. In 1977, a Maliseet Woman Sandra Lovelace, challenged the discriminatory legislation of the Indian Act. This policy stated that an Indigenous woman would lose her legal Indian status if she were to marry a non-status Indian. The loss of status was detrimental to Native women because it would no longer allow for them to reside on reserve, breaking the connection to culture and community, two imperative factors in sustaining Indigenous identity. Lovelace brought her case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was rejected. She then brought her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) arguing that this denial of status was an act of discrimination against her inherent rights of an Indigenous woman to maintain cultural and communal connections (ICCPR 1976). The UNHRC did find that this policy infringed upon Article 27 of the ICCPR and the Canadian state reacted by amending the Indian Act through Bill C-31. Bill C-31 now has a formula that is no less discriminating against Indigenous women and children, as it still determines who a woman can have a child with so that the child may be eligible for status. Furthermore, structural violence has impacted Indigenous women in detrimental ways. With the imposition of the residential school system, children were forced to leave their traditional education systems to engage in Western schooling systems. Violence and abuse were rampant in these schools and the breakdown of community and cultural roles for women occurred at rapid rates. The emotional bond between child and relative, an important factor to Indigenous communities, was loosened and this disconnection impacted Indigenous communities leading to detrimental impacts on cultural transmission (Jacobs & Williams 124). This form of structural violence against Native women is yet another tool the state has used in an attempt to dominate the land. Finally, media stories have had an impact on reinforcing violence against Indigenous women. General society, rather than view these women as powerful leaders, tend to see them as worthless or sub-human. This is apparent in the way that news stories cover issues of Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women within Canada. Rather than focus on the fact that the victims of these stories are strong and prominent women, mothers, or daughters, there is discussion on the negative aspects of their lives. For example, the recent media coverage on the death of Cindy Gladue demonstrates that she was a prostitute prior to any discussion that she was a mother of three children and a woman belonging to a Cree community. This disregard reinforces to general society that Native women are worthless and that violence against them is an acceptable fact. The state does not want to acknowledge the role that it plays in the violence against these women, nor does it want to engage in alleviating the issue. To assume that the state would provide assistance to alleviate this issue would also require that the state is willing to share sovereignty over this territory as it re-empowered Indigenous women, allowing for them their inherent rights as political leaders within community and to be regarded as well-respected beings within the present nation-state of Canada.

Anderson, Kim. A Recognition of Being: Reconstructing Native Womanhood. Toronto: Second Story Press, 2000. Print.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). United Nations Human Rights.1976. Retrieved on March 12, 2014.

Jacobs, Beverly, and Williams, A. "Legacy of Residential Schools: Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women." in From Truth to Reconcilliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools. Ed. Marlene B. Castellano, Linda Archibald and Mike DeGagne. (2008) Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. p 119-140. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljaygood (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nova Scotia First Nations

There's a map in the article that links to articles about First Nation groups in various provinces, and there are links for most provinces, yet there's no link for Nova Scotia (The NS initial appears on the correct geography, but doesn't link to anything). There are a number of bands from the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia. Someone should add this link. 142.68.203.123 (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above critique. I have found a link for Nova Scotian First Nation groups as well that you might find beneficial to the article [[2]]Laurenbreadner (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

First Nations Article Critique

Unclear explanations as to what the socially constructed term of "First Nations" means in regards to a group of people. With all the so called politically correct terms, it seems as though there is not one officially used term. Each reference is supported by a source but not all seem to be reliable as there are many oppositions to which truth carries the most significance. There is a lot of information relating to the topic of First Nations. However, I do not feel everything is relatable. I find many sub-headings to be distracting. Crimes and incarceration, suicides, murdering of men and women.. to name a few. The caucasian race and black people pages on wikipedia do not include such headings so why bring these topics to life? Sure there have been issues in regards to this, just as it has for other races. The viewpoint of Contemporary Issues is underrepresented, and it focuses on only problems regarding first nations people. More positive insight should be added. Contemporary issues should not be constructed as strictly negative comments. Information to be added is necessary. Sport is not listed anywhere in this article. First Nations people participate in many different sports such as: Sliding game, To Wepi Cikan, Tossing the Ball, Tewaarathon, Runners, Akraurak or Aqijut. AdamDangelo (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary French translation of First Nations in the beginning, as it is an English article. As noted previously, I would have liked to see a more consistent definition of "First Nations" used in the article as well. There were some terms in the terminology section of the article that were not properly referenced. The quote, "the term "Aboriginal" was first defined in the 1982 Constitution Act. "Aboriginal Identity" was not in use until 1996. In Canada, both "Aboriginal" and "First Nations" have "specific definitions" and as a result they are NOT interchangeable part as in the article." This quote seems irrelevant as it fails to explain what Aboriginal Identity is, and it brings up the question of the First Nation definition again as it compares it to the term "Aboriginal". Just a little confusing. There is a lot of negative opinion on Canadian First Nations presented in this article. It would be nice to see a more neutral standpoint, as like Adam stated, it seems that they are underrepresented.Laurenbreadner (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Evaluation of the First Nations Article

Is there anything missing that could be added? A section about sports could be added to the article. There have been numerous First Nations sportspeople who have been recognized within their sport from receiving awards and accolades. So, the sports section could be added under the Culture section within the article. In addition, the Missing and murdered women section could be updated as The Government of Canada has announced an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Is each fact referenced? Throughout the article, there are a few facts with missing citations. For example, the First and Second World Wars section is not cited, so I am unaware of the sources used for these facts. Secondly, the fourth paragraph in the Colonization and Integration section is not cited regarding the different percentages of churches that ran schools.Ebasterf (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to related article

The article Native American mascot controversy has a link to this article and some content on the issue in Canada. Should there be a subsection in "Contemporary issues" that has a summary and link to that article?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

While reading through a few of the references noticed that some of the references were out of date. Meaning they no longer exist. Reference numbers 2 and 14 (because they are the same) bring to a website that no longer is available. Also reference number 79 no longer exist as well. Should be taken out or corrected for people in the future looking for these references. Also a major section of First Nation cultural practices is missing, which is sport. Sport is a major part of the Aboriginal cultural practices and traditional practices. Examples of some sports that the First Nation uses for skill training, education, social interaction and healthy lifestyle living are games such as Bubberah; a boomerang game, Buroinjin; a game similar to basketball and Keetan; a keep-away like game. These are just a few examples of the traditional sports. Could also include under sports subheading are tournaments the First Nation peoples host as well as awards that are strictly for Aboriginal peoples. Dunzy22 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Also - First Nations refers to Australian Indigenous Peoples

It's not mentioned in this page, but First Nations is *also* used to refer to Australian Indigenous peoples. See here, so it would seem it should also be referenced here, as it's not only a term for Canadian Indigenouse people. Do people oppose or support a reference to the use of First Nations in Australia here? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• support Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think potential confusion is averted with the {{about}} template directing readers to Indigenous peoples. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no discussion about it being used by Australia in the article, so there's no information on how its used here. The information in the article only refers to how its used in Canada. Could we put a small section in this article at least, referring to how its used in Australia? with the bulk of it referring to Canada? Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A brief mention in the right place could improve the article. I think it's unfortunate that this article dealing with the subject in Canada has simply the name "First Nations". There might be a solution in a rename of the article, or perhaps direction to a disambiguation page. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think the navigation is set up very well, and the way the term seems to be set up as only applying to Canadian indigenous people, with superficialilty to other people that use it is a bit odd. "First Nations" is definitely now widely used in Australia, and has been for some time. It doesn't just mainly refer specifically to Canadian Indigenous people, but that's what this article seems to say. You are right, possibly changing the title of this article to "Canadian First Nations" or "First Nations (Canadian Indigenous People)" could be a solution. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Willondon Running with your suggestion, I think adding in a reference to the use of the term in Australia makes the article a bit more inclusive, and less absolute about the term being exclusive to Canada (without changing the whole article) so with a minor alteration to the current text we could use: "The First Nations (French: Premières Nations [pʁəmjɛʁ nasjɔ̃]) is a term for both groups of Canadian indigenous peoples, who are classified as distinct from the Inuit and Métis.[2], and for Indigenous Australians" - is that what you had in mind?/acceptable? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a change here [3]. Let's see how it's received. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. I have references for it, I'll insert them when I get a chance.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved..... First Nations in Canada... First Nations.Moxy- 02:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice one - that sorts it thank you Moxy Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a proper move discussion might have been better. Especially considering the number of incoming links to First Nations. It will catch a lot of people by surprise. I think that First Nations (Canada) or Canadian First Nations would have been better than this title. The term "First Nations in Canada" isn't used in Canada and that's why I changed the opening. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Used title that matches all other here Indigenous peoples in Canada /Métis people in Canada and as per the source in the lead from Goverment of Canada site First Nations in Canada. This also used in the lead already Traditionally, First Nations in Canada.. and the norm like " First Nations of the Mackenzie and Yukon River Basins" ...also how American articles are set up Native Americans in the United States vs Native Americans....that said First Nations (Canada) would be ok with me but no one will ever type (Canada) in a search ...will hold of on bot for redirect fix....redirect fix being implemented by others already --Moxy- 00:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"First Nations in Canada" as the opening wording in this article gives the impression that it is a common term in Canada and it isn't. The link you give is to a government publication and that's why in the intro there, it is in italics. You could change the opening to read; "The First Nations in Canada, normally called First Nations, are those Indigenous peoples who are neither Inuit or Métis." By the way "Métis people in Canada" is a redirect to Métis#Métis people in Canada. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

https://dplbot.toolforge.org/dab_fix_list.php?title=First_Nations

"no one will ever type (Canada) in a search" – Voltaire, Essay on the Caribou and Snow of the Wastelands, 1756

_signed, Willondon (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why Voltaire mocked Canada as ‘a few acres of snow’? He also called it the land of 'barbarians, bears and beavers'.Moxy- 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In regards to classification of Indigenous ethnicities

It is stated throughout the article that the Metis and Inuit are not indigenous, this is not only disingenuous but factually wrong. The terms "first nations" and "aboriginal" have their own definitions, "indigenous" is a seperate term with an alternate meaning and definition. 70.69.140.126 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"First Nations (French: Premières Nations) is a term used to identify those Indigenous Canadian peoples who are neither Inuit nor Métis" Moxy- 12:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph is horrendous and needs to be rewritten. I would do it myself, but I have no idea what it's even trying to say.

Within Canada, the term First Nations has come into general use for Indigenous peoples other than Inuit and Métis. Individuals using the term outside Canada include Indigenous Australians, U.S. tribes within the Pacific Northwest, as well as supporters of the Cascadian independence movement. The singular, commonly used on culturally politicized reserves[citation needed], is the term First Nations person[citation needed] (when gender-specific, First Nations man or First Nations woman). Since the late 20th century, members of various nations more frequently identify by their tribal or national identity only, e.g., "I'm Haida", or "We're Kwantlens", in recognition of the distinct First Nations. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Add a paragraph re inhabitants preceding the First Nations people?

I understand that First Nations is both the official name and pretty much the common name for Canadian Native Americans (or whatever, and fine. Not suggesting we change anything much in the article, maybe add a couple sentences.

Because, just as a point of fact, they're not first anything. They replaced -- slaughtered for all we know, but more likely just took their women or interbred or whatever -- people who were there first Paleo-Indians, who themselves had various waves I would suppose.

I was thinking of adding the following paragraph, or something like it, to the end of the "Terminology" section:

Whether or to what extent the First Nations peoples currently inhabiting Canada or who did so at the time of European contact are actually first nations of Canada per se (first organized human inhabitants) is a subject of continuing scientific dispute. Significant native populations are generally thought to have inhabited Canada since at least 13,500 BCE, although the oldest definite archeological find in the Yukon dates to 8,000 BCE (or earlier). Modern DNA analysis and linguistic analysis indicates that, though there is some connection between these first inhabitants and present First Nations peoples, the connection may or may not be somewhat tenuous.

There're refs for this, or most if it, altho I haven't set them down and don't want to take the trouble if the paragraph is a no-go on political grounds. And a lot of the refs are books which I can't read.

I think it's worthwhile to point out to the reader that the terms "First Nations" is (probably) not actually descriptively accurate. Depending on how you define your terms anyway. In fact the members of these peoples are actually the next-to-last-nations (to the state of Canada) I think, and for all we know slaughtered the previous inhabitants.

But, I don't want to be, I don't know, considered a racist or something, so I'm asking for comments first. Herostratus (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)