Talk:Indian reserve/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Indian reserve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed this because it needs to be fleshed out considerably:

==Controversy==

Many roads have undergone construction. Freeway projects have been ruining land on Indian reserves. The local planners have put many freeway projects on hiatus especially in Canada since Canada has Indian reserves in various places.

We need some detail about who protested and why, and some examples of projects that were suspended. Since the article is about Canadian reserves the inclusion of reserves elsewhere is irrelevant. John FitzGerald 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reserves vs Reservations

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How is the history of the development of "Indian reserves" in Canada markedly different from that of the "Indian reservations" in the United States as claimed in the article ? Please state the differences. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It involves more of a sense of smug superiority. 216.252.78.183 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Smug comment aside, the main difference is that reserves were not created by treaty but by edict and that, unlike the US where many are "sovereign states" within the US, there is no such legal condition in Canadian law, other than that re-affirmed by the courts recently that native rights are enshrined in the constitution, and that native nations regard themselves as sovereign is not limited to the Indian reserves created under the Indian Act, and quite often, especially in BC, have nothing to do with treaties (85% of BC has had no treaties; the Mi'kmaq in the Maritimes never signed away their sovereignty, also). That treaties were violated repeatedly in the US e.g. the old Sioux reservations that were upended, among others, is not quite the same thing as in Canada; two entirely different legal systems and histories; too much to explain here, and though a section comparing the two systems might be called-for it would be complicated to write, and is not really the subject for t his article as such. US reservations tend to be blocks of land; in Canada they are often many, and disparate parcels, for the same band; but are tiny relative to their traditional territories, even in areas e.g. the North Coast of BC, where they are in the majority.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Property Title

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is confusing. It is not clear for example who owns reserve land. Is it the Crown, the bands themselves or individual band members ? 187.34.69.140 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the title of this article "Indian Reserve", when in the body of the article it states that is a former term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.254.156 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 October 2013

It was a falsehood and has been removed.Skookum1 (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

First Nations reserve

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian reserve → First Nations reserve – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 173.51.29.188 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Would certainly help address and potential ambiguity with Indian reservations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose. We should use whichever term actually predominates, and neither the above nomination nor the references in the article support the premise that "First Nation[s] reserve" is more common than "Indian reserve". My own unscientific Googling seems to show "Indian reserve" being more popular than "First Nation reserve" by about 2:1, and the plural form "First Nations reserve" suggested in the nomination above also seems less common than the singular. Do note that preferences about what should be more common are not important here - I say that as an American who wishes that the term "First nations" was more common both here and in Canada. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 - back to Indian reserve

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

First Nations reserve → Indian reserve – Unless that's it above, i.e. the relisting of the former RM by Steel1943, I haven't been able to locate the Aug 2013 RM which was when User:Oceanflynn moved it to its current name, and began to rewrite the lede into its current synth/justification form, and here is the CfD on Category:Indian reserves and its progeny, which I suggest you read, particularly the last sections where all the google stats suggested in the RM template are discussed and examined, and other matters.

Re Ocean Flynn's name change, here is his accompanying edit comment: (First Nations not Indian (AINC GC 2004) "The term "Indian" is considered outdated by many people, and there is much debate over whether to continue using this term. ") but as laid out in the CfD, "Indian reserve" is a noun phrase and arbitrarily changing one word in it results in a neologism not supported by that source. Try searching it for "First Nations reserve" in that PDF....you will not find it. What you will find is the phrase on page 15 "Many First Nations now prefer the term 'First Nations community' and no longer use the term 'reserve'", and nothing at all that supports the name change, or the lengthy rationalization currently in the lede (which I am going to be BOLD and remove as WP:SYNTH/WP:OR as unsupported by the cited source and its own usages, but an "interpretation" (=synth) by the name-changer:
re the subsequent edit comment by OceanFlynn "(In Canada, the term First Nationbegan replacing "Indian" in the 1970s with government document refs (AINC 2004))" that does not say that the government began replacing "Indian reserve" with "First Nations reserve", it says something completely different. And the term "many" in his first comment is not "all" or even "most". In a similar synthesis, in this edit comment, Oceanflynn says ""Indian" can be used in legal documents for a specific legal meaning Canada Revenue Agency 2013)" but that cite makes no mention of "First Nations reserve" nor "Indian reserve", and this is not about a legal document, it is about a legal name and one enshrined in law and on maps and in very wide use, as already aptly explained the related CfD. Supplanting one word in it is "not on". This pattern of misappropriating what a cite says continues in the next several edits, as you will see in the August section of the article history.....having to make an argument and expand the lede by doing this, while mis-using the citations to form the synthesis, is contrary to guidelines and blatant WP:Original research.
Also the IP user in the recent RM said outright "Do note that preferences about what should be more common are not important here - I say that as an American who wishes that the term "First nations" was more common both here and in Canada. 168.12.253.66" which is overtly POV and a statement of intent to influence the usage in the real world. Wishes are not votes and that's not a valid argument at all.
the argument by User:Labattblueboy that the move to First Nations reserve was "Would certainly help address and potential ambiguity with Indian reservations." is irrelevant to naming criteria. American English and Canadian English usages and designations are entirely separate matters, and Canadian law and Canadian maps are very clear on the term "Indian reserve". It's true that the term "reservation" occurs in casual use, but it is not as common whether in publications or in common speech. And is never used by band governments or other governments nor in the media.
the lede, until it was changed substantially expanded in the synth argument by Oceanflynn, was stable from June 14, 2004 until the change this last August.] Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Indian reserve, Support Indian reserve (Canada), Neutral First Nations reserve If this move succeeds I in the very least see a requirement for parenthesis disambiguation with (Canada) as a rather necessary requirement. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA requires that the title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. There are clear ambiguity issues wit prominent articles with similar naming including Indian reservation and Indian Reserve (1763), not to mention Reservation in India. This is most particularly so for the fact the "Indian reserve" has clear usage in the United states ("indian reserve", united states -canada has 10K hits[1]) In terms of search data "indian reserve", canada -wikipedia -America -United States produced 14,200 google book hits[2]. "first nation reserve", -wikipedia produced significantly less at 4,200 hits[3] so it is fair to say that Skookum1 has fair common name argument but also fair to say the term "Indian" is not a favourably term in Canada, with the noted exception of legal documents as the Canadian constitution denotes them as such. All in all, I can't support unless the ambiguity is addressed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- - Comment re "but also fair to say the term "Indian" is not a favourably term in Canada", you're totally wrong about that, if you look around FN articles, e.g. Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, which is a tribal council. There's dozens of such examples, it's not an "unfavourable" term and remains in wide use and remains acceptable; some old terms remain e.g. Native Indian Brotherhood not longer has that name, but the article shouldn't be renamed (if there is one) to Native First Nations Brotherhood (I believe tha'ts the Assembly of First Nations now). There's also very prominently the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and many many bands with "Indian" in the name.Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    - I was speaking in reference to this topic not the wider use but given the topic lead is First Nations I don't think applying to the wider topic would be off base..--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
      - I don`t understand what you mean; the "topic lead" here is Indian reserves, not First Nations as such, for which there are a plethora of other articles (see my notes below about the dross in this article that belongs elsewhere). The topic at hand is not whether the "correct" term is "Indian" or "First Nation(s)", but what the real and most common name of reserves is (and not what it "should" be). the "wider topic" seems to me to be a red herring, albeit not an intentional one.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Indian reserve. Oppose Indian reserve (Canada) as it is unnecessary dab. The term is exclusive to Canada and nowhere else. There is no such thing as a reserve for people of Indian descent.
Reasons for supporting "Indian reserve" are as follows:

Consensus at recent CfD debating "First Nation reserve" (FNR) vs. "Indian reserve" (IR);
Per WP:TITLE, IR is more recognizable, more natural, more precise (because there are no other subjects at that title) and more concise than FNR;
Per WP:COMMONNAME's suggestion for restricted search engine results:

general Google English search less Wikipedia yields 1,090K for "IR" (75%) and 354K for "FNR" (25%);
general Google Books English search (better default search to concentrate on reliable sources) less “Books, LLC” and less Wikipedia yields 129,000 for "IR" (99.9999%) and measley 8 for "FNR" (0.0001%);
general Google English search less Wikipedia and less sites with a “.ca” domain, which should keep most government websites out and most major English-language media outlets in yields 443K for "IR" (64%) and 244K for "FNR" (36%);

Google Books Ngram Viewer underscores that "IR" is more common than "FNR";
Consistent with associated categoeries and List of Indian reserves in Foo articles;
Federal legislation uses "IR", not "FNR"
Statistics Canada uses "IR", not "FNR" [4] [5];
Natural Resources Canada/Canadian Geographical Names Database uses "IR", not "FNR" [6] [7];

Is the term "First Nation(s)" more common than "Indian" when describing these peoples in Canada? Maybe. Not sure. But that is not what this move is about. This move is about the reserves of these peoples. So in this context, is "Indian reserve" more common that "First Nations reserve". Absolutely no question per all the evidence above. Let's do the right thing here. Hwy43 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Support per my comments in the previous discussion (which see). I also see no need to have this page at Indian reserve (Canada); a hatnote is sufficient to distinguish the similar Indian reservation. 168.12.16.14 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Current term is clearly Canadian and "First Nations reserve" is in common parlance. "Indian reserve" would just be confusing, since it could refer to any number of aboriginal lands in various North and South American countries. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Comment Which would those be?Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian reservation, Indian country, Indian colony, Indian Territory, Indigenous Territory (Brazil), Indigenous Land (Brazil). In Colombia they are known as "Indigenous reserves" in English. Indigenous lands in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Panama don't have overarching articles yet (only articles for individual comarcas/communal lands/reserves/etc.), but they need to eventually be created. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Reply "Indian reserve" is a specifically Canadian usage, also in French reserve indienne, every bit as much - and demonstrably moreso - as "First Nations reserve". The Latin American usages are not the most common meaning of "Indian reserve" in English, and as per your use of comarca will have other names. It may be that one of those countries may have a land designation "reserva india" or whatever the wording would be, but even so translating that into English would still not be the most common use in English, or in the anglosphere. If anything, those terms would be derived or in imitation of the Canadian term, and can be disambiguated easy enough.Skookum1 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Further points by nominator in reference to the notion that FN reserve is, or may be, more common and/or acceptable than Indian reserve:
- Websites of the band governments generally, perhaps exclusively, use the term "Indian reserve" on their sites, whether naming individual reserves or in general references. This includes their own listings of the reserves as legally named. And although StatsCan and the geographic name servers now use "FOO n" for reserve names, those same listings use "Indian reserve/reserve indienne" exclusively; this has already been observed in other citations of official/legal usage. That some of the media and some in academia insist in their styleguides the p.c. usage, the governments and organizations of these peoples by and large, if ever, use the p.c. ism but use the conventional term "Indian r/Reserve". This also applies to the fact that the acronym "IR" is a common colloquialism in speech and print, where as "FNR" decidedly is not.
The major media chains e.g. canada.com, cbc.ca, and the like, seem to use "First Nations reserve" overwhelmingly; demonstrations this is not actually the case are below. In smaller chains and independent papers use is variable:
- In The Tyee, an online zine which is decidedly p.c. in tone, there are, excluding wikipedia from the search which is based on +tyee.ca 8100 hits; for "first nations reserve" there are 4300 hits these include comments posts on the zine's forums.
- for the Terrace Daily, the flagship of a small chain in northwestern BC, is another independent paper and also very politically minded, with a large native readership and decided native sympathies, and whose url/domain is mwpr.ca which is the basis of the search here, excluding wikipedia, there are 3 (three) results. For "Indian reserve" there are 45 results. On the paper's own search page, there are 61 results for Indian r/Reserve, and 77 for "First Nations reserve" which include materials from the RCMP and NDP MP Nathan Cullen.
- the Kamloops Daily News, a member paper of the conservative Glacier Media Group, there are 45 results for "Indian reserve". For "First Nations reserve", there are 28 results. It is worth noting here that this paper is in an area with many, many Indian reserves, and of the "Indian reserve" citations many are names of actual reserves, e.g. Skeetchestn Indian Reserve (without a number)
- on the Abbotsford-Mission Times, another member of the Glacier Media Group, and also located in an area with many reserves (though not as many as Chilliwack, which is just east), there are 55 results for "Indian reserve", there are 46 results
- a search using lillooetnews.net for FN reserve yields yields 3 results and note that these are not in the paper itself but in other sources which also cite the paper. for "indian reserve" there are 32 results, again like the Kamloops citation including names of reserves mentioned in the course of articles. The BRLN is also a Glacier Media paper and is in a community with a regional population that is over 50% (more like 60%) native.
- I could take the time to source other independent medias, and the other smalltown chain in my region, Black Press, but I know what I will find. For sake of the exercise:
- for "canada.com +"Indian Reserve" -wikipedia", there are 684,000 results, for the same string with "First Nations reserve", there are 251,000 results
- for "cbc.ca +"First Nations reserve" -wikipedia" there are 162,000 results. For "Indian Reserve", there are 81,000 results. On the network's own site, there are 159 results for "Indian Reserve", there are 147 results.
- I was going to search Sunmedia, but sunmedia.ca redirects to Quebcor Media Sales' core website, as also was the case with Glacier Media Group when I tried to find a central search for all its news media outlets. On Canada.com's search domain o.canada.com there is one result for First Nations reserve, none for Indian reserve. But on an individual paper, e.g. the Vancouver Sun, there are 20 results for "Indian Reserve" and 10 for "First Nations reserve. I take it that those are in only recent editions, or the current one, given the commonness of both terms.
- I grow weary of this, but believe this serves to show that even major media, who generally advance the use of the term "First Nations reserve", tend to favour "Indian Reserve", with a so-so exception by the CBC. I invite someone else to survey the websites of the UBCIC, AFN, various tribal councils and other native organizations, and aboriginal media such as aptn.ca, for more case studies of what is the most prevalent use in Canadian media. I would submit that it's very likely that academic sources will come up with similar comparisons.
- I must stress that this is not a matter of what people would like to be the most common usage (people=wikipedians) but what is the most common and prevalent usage. I may come back after a little rest to survey natives sites in the same way...as to what natives themselves prefer to use.
- as in the case of the endonym RMs, the point that non-Canadian citations are not relevant to titles of Canadian articles; Canadian English usage applies, not what is most common across the web; whatever that may be. And what native people prefer to use is highly relevant, but by way of this usages on native blogs and media yet need to be looked at; but as with the BRLN, which though not native-owned serves a native readership, and given names like the Union of BC Indian Chiefs...it's not like the word "Indian" is "taboo" or that the term "formerly" should be in the lede at all.
- The original lede of the article went "In Canada, an Indian reserve is specified by the Indian Act as a "tract of land,....". No one has ever suggested that the article Indian Act should become First Nations Act, nor should it ever be. There is a distinction between the legally-designated plot of land created by the Indian ACt which is an "Indian reserve", such as Attawapiskat Indian Reserve 91, which happens to be a redirect to Attawapiskat First Nation, which please note is not "Attawapiskat First Nation Reserve" and that "First Nation" in that context refers to the place/community and government all in one article. It is not the same thing as an Indian Reserve as created by the Indian Act, which is the term that this article was based upon. Attawapiskat First Nation is in the Category:Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which is a subcategory of Category:First Nations organizations in Ontario which is a subcategory of Category:First Nations governments in Ontario, .....to clarify that sequence, it is an article about a government that governs the place of Attawapiskat Indian Reserve 91, which is there the community that is the people of Attawapiskat (as the community is known), and that is why separate categories and separate articles exist; even when there is only one community; in others such as with the Seton Lake First Nation, whom I have lived among, Seton Portage, British Columbia and Shalalth comprise a few reserves each, and yet both are under one government. Separate categories and separate titles exist for good reason, paramount among them is WP:MOSFOLLOW; Slosh Indian Reserve No. 1 and other reserves encompass the area/community known as Shalalth, Silicon Indian Reserve No. 2 is part of the Seton Lake First Nation, but it is not part of either Shalalth or Seton Portage. And neither of those could or should be titled "Slosh First Nations Reserve 1" or "Silicon First Nations Reserve 2", and they could not be titled like that because there are no sources that call them that.
- One final point, an emerging usage in Canadian media when using "First Nations" as a supplantation for "Indian" is that in adjectival form, which is what this is, the new mode is to use "the first nations reserve". capitalized "First Nations" refers to proper names as in plural collections of nouns e.g. Seton Lake First Nation, T'it'q'et First Nation, Cacli'p First Nation, Xwisten First Nation (the Lillooet, Fountain and Bridge River Indian Bands, respectively)....those bands, and others like them, don't even use "First Nation" in their names now, they just use T'it'q'et, Cacli'p, and 'Xwisten. What I"m getting at here is that willy-nilly supplantation of the term Indian with First Nations is just not viable, aside from being very pointedly POV, as are all things p.c.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Another item/example The Union of BC Indian Chiefs is one of the major multi-band organizations in BC, mostly from Interior bands. Their site has only one "First Nations reserve" usage, albeit from Mar of this year, vs 1860 "Indian reserve usage NB many citing e.g. the Sproat Indian Reserve Commission and other historical usages. But in the same way that the Indian Act title should not be changed, neither can or should these be also; rewriting history and geography to supplant a neologism is not valid.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Support move back per nominator. While it's undeniably true that First Nations is now strongly preferred over "Indian" when referring to the people and their culture, it is emphatically not true that "First Nations reserve" has supplanted "Indian reserve" as the standard, generally accepted terminology for the geophysical communities where First Nations people live. "First Nations reserve" may be a usage shift that should happen, and it may even be a usage shift that will happen eventually — but as of right now, the standard usage for the geophysical entities is still "Indian reserve". That's still how they're designated in Statistics Canada census data, that's still how they're designated by Natural Resources Canada, that's still how they're designated in the Indian Act, and that's even how most of the reserves are still designated in their own legal and official names. And even if the standard usage does eventually shift away from "Indian reserve", there's no guarantee that "First Nations reserve" will actually become the preferred term — it could just as easily become "native reserve", "aboriginal reserve" or even some entirely new term that hasn't been foreseen yet. Certainly it's a usage that carries problems, I won't deny that — but as of 2013, it's still the standard and normal usage for the geophysical communities where First Nations people live, and it's not Wikipedia's place to impose alternative terminologies that don't match everyday usage. Also, just for the record, it seems pretty clear to me that even the original discussion did not actually establish a sufficient consensus for the move in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Support "Indian reserve" (oppose Indian reserve (Canada)/First Nations reserve), as per points made by Hwy43, Skookum1's reply to Uyvsdi, and Bearcat's points about Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada,the Indian Act, and it not being Wikipedia's place to impose alternative terminologies.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

So much dross

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

After removing the SYNTH/OR from the lede as pointed out in the RM, and fixing some grammar and definitions/wording in sections following, I wound up reading the rest of the article, and wonder why so much of it does not have to do with reserves but instead talks about governance and issues relating to band governments, and not to the concept of reserves themselves. It appears that many contributors to this article do not have a clear handle on the distinction between reserves as places, and bands as governments, and communities as communities. ALL of the following sections really do not belong in this article:

2 Governance on reserves
3 Constitution Act 1867
4 Post-Proclamation and pre-Confederation Treaties and reserves
5 Numbered treaties 1871-1921
6 The Indian Act 1876
7 Northern frontier, northern homeland
8 Terminology
8.1 Status Indian, Registered Indian
8.2 Canadian Federal Government policy regarding use of term "First Nations" instead of "Indian"
9 Indian Act
9.1 CMHC on First Nations reserves
10 Public policy
10.1 CEPA 1999
11 First Nations reserves and water quality

That last section, for example, speaks of water quality re Kashechewan "First Nations reserve" but is really meaning the government, i.e. "the First Nation" (band); while it is about the place, the context of the wording is about the government entity. This type of confusion only abets the confusing current title ("First Nations reserve") and obscures the distinction between the different meanings and usages. It's only a Wiki convention, but "First Nation" in the singular is for band governments, not for peoples in general, nor is it a synonym for reserve; still, in many articles e.g. on Prairie region bands and in Ontario, the articles are written as though those terms are synonymous, but they are not. As for the long exegesis on treaties and the Constitution Act, nothing there directly discusses Indian reserves, and goes on about status and rights and so on....there are other articles for that. I do not have the time or energy to work on all of this, but am disppointed to see so much energy put into justifying the name change (i.e. the deleted lede bits) and expanding other issues to do with First Nations peoples and governments, but so little about the concept of reserves and the various kinds of them out there; there are also Indian Settlements, Metis Communities, and Indian Villages and other designations in AADNC's listings which do not have articles and should be mentioned here, if nowhere else (as yet).Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Would someone else care to shop around and see where the sections above should be moved to? To me, most of what's in them doesn't belong here at all.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

cleanup partly done

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

here are most of the changes I put in after deleting the long SYNTH that came to dominate the lede after the name change in August. As in my previous section, I'm amazed at the amount of work that's been put into adding extraneous information into this article without even getting the facts and circumstances of the reserves listed in it straight or factual.....misleading names, thinking Musqueam was only one reserve and using "who" instead of "which" when it's governments and not people that are being mentioned. Atikamekw I took out entirely as it's not the name of a First Nation, but of an ethnic grouping of three band governments and does not have a single reserve; "Blue Quills" was included as if that one's name wasn't a clear example of the use of the term "Indian Reserve", to whit Blue Quills First Nation Indian Reserve, the Blue Quills connection being the name of one of the chiefs whose band is one of those that formed the Saddle Lake Cree Nation. It's not "Blue Quills First Nation First Nations Reserve", now, is it?? Tidied up about Musqueam, and already done more work than shoudl have been necessary. So much energy put into changing names and justifying the change, and adding extraneous information that's already in other articles, so little research or clear writing on even the few reserves actually mentioned......as I've often said about Wikipedia, it's like people rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship; fiddling with names, and thereby taking up their own energy, and that of others who have to argue things back to where they belong, and work at picking up the pieces and doing the repairs and cleanup the name-movers have either caused by damage, or never did much on other than changing names based on some specious logic/synth/or. Don't anyone dress me down for showing emotion, if that's what pointing out all this constitutes. It would help if people would start understanding the subject matter before screwing around with name changes, let's just leave it at that for now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ongoing cleanup

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the long jumbled bit about the Sto:lo, as only the bit about Peckquaylis was relevant to the topic; there are other shared Sto:lo reserves, Grass No. x, I'll have to look up x=? as I'm unsure of its number, it's near Greendale. Mention of the Sto:lo Declaration and the two tribal councils and non-tribal council bands don't really belong here (and that story in this case would require a whole history of modern Sto:lo politics/divisions). Similarly I pulled the stuff about Nlaka'pamux bands. That paragraph also began with "some reserves choose to belong to tribal councils", which is a confusion-usage resulting from equating reserve=band which is not the case, though that is a common usage/misperception. Same with equating "First Nations" as meaning a people vs meaning a government, and as often used as meaning a place (when singular); Some bands have only one reserve; many have several; and many reserves are shared between bands; some reserves are completely uninhabited, some are only cemeteries or fishing camps; and many of the latter are not reserves though "should" be. A lot of this page had a lot of material that was far from the title topic; this page shouldn't be confused with First Nations government which I feel should be retitled band government because now there are post-band governments like the Nisga'a and the Sechelt and Tsawwassen and traditional governance has always been within the term "First Nations government" (e.g. the Council of Gitxsan Chiefs), while "band government" is exclusively a creature of the Indian Act; that should have an RM applied to it, even though it was me who long ago created the current title. There's also cases where reserve lands are only part of governance/jurisdiction, as with the Council of the Haida Nation or the Taku Tlingit or.....well suffice to say there's a lot more to First Nations territory than reserves; but this article is about reserves, not governance or land claims or even terminology, hence all the stuff I've deleted .Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI: An Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 2001 INAC publication, Words First: an Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, which described outdated terminology and suggested more respectful terms, noted that "Many First Nations now prefer the term "First Nation community," and no longer use "reserve".^[1] In Canada, the term First Nation began replacing Indian in the 1970s^[1]^[2] According to the Communications Branch of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada publication^[1], published in 2001 and updated since, to "provide writers with background information and guidance on appropriate word usage and style issues, the term "Indian" is controversial and outdated. The Department, following "contemporary usage, typically uses the term "First Nation" instead of "Indian,"^[1] except in the following cases: in direct quotations, when citing titles of books, works of art, etc., in discussions of history where necessary for clarity and accuracy, in discussions of some legal/constitutional matters requiring precision in terminology, in discussions of rights and benefits provided on the basis of "Indian" status and in statistical information collected using these categories (e.g., the Census)."^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e INAC (February 2001). "Words First: an Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada" (PDF). Ottawa, Ontario: Communications Branch at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). ISBN 0-662-33143-5. Retrieved February 20, 2018.
^ MANA (nd), Manitoba's Aboriginal Community: Who are Manitoba's Aboriginal People?, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, retrieved 20 September 2013

No clue what your point is here. The article is predicated on the fact that an Indian reserve is a legally defined term by the white supremacist government. Unless that changes in the legislation, it should not be changed here. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Informal protection request

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Indigenous namespaces are under attack daily. The idea that this has no protection from fascist "ninja" editors is, frankly, appalling. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

[WordsFirst_2001-1] INAC (February 2001). "Words First: an Evolving Terminology Relating to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada" (PDF). Ottawa, Ontario: Communications Branch at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). ISBN 0-662-33143-5. Retrieved February 20, 2018.

[2] MANA (nd), Manitoba's Aboriginal Community: Who are Manitoba's Aboriginal People?, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, retrieved 20 September 2013

[1]

[2]