Category talk:First Nations leaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Subcategories

Okay, I'm not sure how best to organize this but there are obviously various opinions so let's talk here. Current subcategories are in the form Category:First Nations leaders in British Columbia. I think using "in" is problematic since it a) suggests present tense when many might be dead b) suggests they were only leaders in a specific province when a lot of the leaders with articles are the leaders of national organizations. "From" would solve these issues, but OldManRivers has raised the relevant point that some (though not all) of these people don't even recognize provinces as legitimate. As Bearcat says, most people DO recognize provinces, but if we can categorize them in a way that satisfies everyone, that would be better, wouldn't it? IRA leaders aren't categorized as being from the UK. =)

Now that I think of it... I'm not sure that "leader" is a very useful term. Maybe we should divide the category into "chiefs" and "activists." Chiefs being Indian Act band chiefs. Category:Indigenous activists already exists. Of course, there will likely be overlap, but not necessarily.

I also disagree with using First Nations rather than Indigenous, but it's a larger issue, since this category is just following a larger pattern here on wikipedia. It can be changed, but not here. Thoughts? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous activists turns out to exist as you've noticed, Bill Reid's in it; I was expecting to find him in First Nations leaders also on the equation artists<=> leaders ;-) (in cultural terms, surely)...was gonna drop by Category:Gitxsan people and Category:Tsimshian people and see "who's in there". "Activists" doesn't quite "get it" for Gunanoot and the others though, and like i said he wasn't a chief as such though he was, I think, "noble" (hereditary title holder). Dan George happened to be a chief, and a si:yam, but his leadership transcends that. Category:Native American leaders has the same issues, somewhere in the indigenous project talkpages there's a discussion about this, from long ago...the Category:First Nations leaders cat was as i recall the result of a "correction" to the use of the NA leaders cat on "Canadian" items....this was before OMR showed up....."chief" should only be used for band chiefs, so maybe Category:XXXX band chiefs is appropriate (XXXX="indigenous" probably) but it also implies "XXXX band council members" as a c at. This should be on the Canadians Wikipedia noticeboard, whatever it's called, and maybe on the Indigenous talkpage also, though that's been pretty quiet for a while....that's all for now, I'm gonna have my shower and make some lunch.Skookum1 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeayh, some well-intended "Oregon Country" contributor created this category: Category:Native American people of the Pacific Northwest which we need to address, somehow; I'd say just change to "indigenous peoples"; it's placed on Category:Gitxsan and others...this is one of the regional crossborder issues like the templates I mentioned which need input from all sides; User:Pfly and User:Northwesterner (exact name?), User:NorCalHistory and User:Murderbike should all be notified of this discussion etc...(WPWA, WPOR, WPAK). New-person User:BrainyBabe has also been puttering around indigenous articles lately, lidewise someone else around Haida items...User:Billposer's the director of the YDLI in Vanderhoof, professional lingust, tends to stay aloof but he and his people are responsible for creating most of the northern-people articles, which is why they're ethnographic/linguistic/academic in tone....anyway IMO we need a "reigonal workign group" that knits together the respective WikiProjects on such issues/articles.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing this category as it stands is probably a good idea, as this discussion has certainly highlighted the ambiguity of its current name. For what it's worth, this category is meant to be only for people who served as a band chief at the local level. Leaders of national FN organizations aren't filed in this category at all, with the exception of a few (e.g. Walter Dieter) who led national organizations before or after also serving as a local band chief. For example, chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations have their own separate subcategory of Category:Political office-holders of Aboriginal governments in Canada, and simply aren't in this category unless they also served as a band chief at another time in their careers.

The other concern was that many of the people in this category — not all, but a considerable number — were also being filed directly in the relevant "(Province) politicians" categories and needed to be diffused out of there, which is really the principal reason why the subcategories were created in the first place.

One suggestion would be that we could divide historical pre-Confederation chiefs from post-Confederation ones. Contemporary band chiefs are much more obviously "politicians" in the modern sense — in many ways, the role of a band chief today is quite similar to that of a municipal mayor, an analogy which obviously isn't valid for historical figures. And they're much more clearly subdividable by the province or territory in which their band is located, as well.

But as for the from vs. in issue, I have to stress again that this particular category is meant to be for people who led individual bands in the relevant province. It's not meant for people from a province who led an interprovincial advocacy group such as the AFN outside the province they came from — those are and/or should be categorized elsewhere. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, raterhthan pre/post-Confederation it's more like pre/post-Indian Act; I can't remember if I cross-filed Nicola and Maquinna under Category:Pre-confederation British Columbia people but maybe so; I as never happy with that as a demarcator both for indigenous peoples and others, because many, many span the pre/post-C dateline; pre/postWWI is a cultural/economic breakpoint in BC history, with the previous eras known as the "pioneer times", but Category:British Columbia pioneers sounds so.....colonialist, don' it? As well as not something you'd use for Nicola et al.. Sounds like there's also a distinction to be established between a hierarchy for native politicians who were band chiefs, and native politicians who were MPs and MLAs etc., i.e. who weren't also chiefs or on council...most were like Frank Calder and Eiljah Harper.....not sure about Len Marchand, and he may not have been status, I think....sounds very un-Liberal, though....So anyway, there's still the issues of leaders who weren't band chiefs; not just the old-time traditional leaders already spoken of but people like Gunanoot; he's a "chief" only in the sense of being as noble, from waht I remember of the story anyway. but never an Indian Act chief, only a hereditary "chief", a high-ranked noble,, the equivalent up there of si:yam I guess.. How about C eategory:First Nations politicians? That could include council members....or chiefs could be a subcat of it...and we still need a term for people who weren't Indian Act proxies, hereditary/traditional chiefs though some of the Indian ACt chiefs also are/were. I'll check aroudn the Secwepemc and Siylx and other websites to see waht terms they use themselves; i.e. for traditoinal "chiefs"; I think the Sta'ta'imc are icnreasingly using kukpi7 in English as a surrogate for "chief" but ti's being supplanted on a ;white concept; kukpi7 originally meant something very different, as even the Sta't'imcets teacher told me....what I'm getting at is t he thought of using the particualr language's indigenous terms; mabye that's asking too much of the reader, though.....Category:Kukpi7 of teh Lil'wat'ulh e.g. - or theri choice of wording in English, chief/leader/high poobah, whatever....no consistency across hierarchies though, huh?I'll have to go look at Category:Native American leaders again to see if/how they split band-chiefs/politicans off...if they did.Skookum1 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That distinction and category already exist. Aboriginal people who served in provincial, territorial or federal legislative bodies are categorized at Category:First Nations politicians, not Category:First Nations leaders. Elijah Harper was a band chief before moving on to provincial and federal politics, so he's in both categories. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We're still stuck with having to deal with thte ambiguities/dualities of the phrase "First Nations"; ". In the position we're useing it in, it tends to have the adjectival, ethnic meaning; not in teh stand-alone "noun position....what about, say, Category:Le3aders of First nations, so that the syntax is clear, or a bit more clear; it's not "Leaders of First Nations people" or "leaders who are First Nations people" which is more the sense we've already b een struggling with; the syntax we need, in a shorter form maybe, is "Leaders of First Nations governments"....ideally "band governments", one supposes....here'se an an extreme extension, but maybe needed Category:Leaders of traditional indigenous government (or traditional First Nations government]]; this takes in Maquinna, Hunter Jack, etc if not Gunanoot, and allows room for the high-ups in the Nisga'a Lisims, the first modern-traditional govt. "Gove3rnment" I put as singular because it has a more abstract sensee rather than meaning that there wer recognizable govts; many of these guys siply were the government (Hunter Jack at least). Gonna try and find that discusdsion re the NA leaders cat,.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Leaders of First Nations governments" isn't a bad idea... it avoids any confusion with activists, organizations, and it would fit in under the existing "First Nations governments" category. And it would avoid my problem with subcategories: "Leaders of First Nations governments in XXX" is fine by me. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I remembered later, there's Category:Leaders of Tribal Councils or small-case I suppose Category:Leaders of tribal councils; leaving off hte FN/NA demarcataion because of certain cross-border orgs like Ktunaxa-Kinbasket, Okanagan and Tlingit and Haida, too (hmmm, there's no Tsimshian TC of late but it also spanned the border. You could still put "in Canada" or "in Wyjoing" or whatever; not taht we have all these articles "yet" but it's good to eestablish parameters, no?

[edit] proposed move

Anyone object to a move to Category:Leaders of First Nations governments ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chiefs of First Nations band governments

Category:Chiefs of First Nations tribal council governments

Category:Leaders of traditional First Nations governments

...or Category:Chiefs of First Nations governments ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

....since 'chief' is invariably the title, i'd say use it - but use 'band government' vs also 'tribal councils' or 'tribal council government' - "leader' is too ambiguous and could mean prominent or outspoken council member . nb also 'leders of First ntions tribl councils' might occsionl spillover into 'leaders of native americn tribal Councils....this won't happen with band governments. BTw see Chief Shakes in this capacity except in that case not native american but native alaskan...s well s FN 9(chief of Taku River Tlingit - see Taku which needs CanCon) . having keyboard problems more when fixed.Skookum1 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)