Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Category:Amerindians


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Kept. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Category:Amerindians

 * Vote closed: Kept (4 keeps, some significant comments from an editor, not explicit dissent but apparent not in favor of keeping it). As a subsidiary result, Category:Amerindians should be deleted (3 deletes, no explicit dissent) --Aphaia 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)


 * Delete. Replaced by Category:Amerindians -- Benn M 07:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (The user who nominated the entry for deletion wishes to strike through his vote here. How does he do this? --Benn M 17:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC))
 * Comment: '' I stroke it . Use  or , further information is available on How to edit a page, I hope ... Aphaia
 * Thanks. --Benn M 23:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you let me know why "Amerindians" is the better name? Native Americans sounds me more natural and Amerindians sounds strange and a bit unclear. --Aphaia 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the linguistic term "Amerind", which has sufficient separation from its erroneous English origins to be useful with less false implication. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am long familiar with the term Amerindian, and have used it, but it does remain relatively unfamiliar to most people, while Native American is quite commonly used. I believe Native Americans should be preferred here, as it is on the Wikipedia, and Amerindian deleted as a category. ~ Kalki 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, and delete the Amerindian category. Sams 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: And the Pandora's box of categorization by nationality/geography/ethnicity is hereby opened. Not that I would stoop to saying I told you so, eh? &#9786; &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 02:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Native Americans is a more inclusive title than Amerindian which does not include Inuits and perhaps Na-Dene groups like the Navaho. See discussion at Talk:Native American. Rmhermen 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rmhermen, your comment implies that we want to include Inuits and others in the category. Why shouldn't they be in a separate category? What is the intended subset of peoples to be represented by this category? Aren't we really talking about "people of the Americas whose ancestors arrived between 25,000 BCE and 1000 CE", or "people of the Americas whose ancestors weren't from colonizing European nations"? And where do we fit notable people who have ancestors in both the earlier and later populations? &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citing Rmhermen's citation. Delete Category:Amerindians. A note on the categorization by nationality/geography/ethnicity in this particular circumstance. I didn't want the term "Native American", often misconstrued as a native of the territory of the United States, to be so misconstrued. However, after reading this, I relent. -- Benn M 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think it is a good idea to begin another vote on a certain deletion vote (because every vote needs at least 14 days and it make the discussion unclear). --Aphaia 07:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a native American (i.e., someone born in America), I take offense to this categorization. (Not enough to vote one way or another on it; just enough to make inconvenient, probing comments.) My friend Magdalena is also a native American, having been born in Mexico, North America. Yes, our ancestors participated in the slaughter of the earlier residents (the so-called indigenous peoples, who themselves moved in from Asia and/or Pacific islands), but then again, some of our ancestors were probably from those very same earlier occupants, putting many of us on both sides of this classification divide. This is what I mean by arguing that such distinctions are inherently misleading, confusing, and therefore of dubious value. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So you also take offense to wikipedia:Category:Native Americans? I don't see the value in making isolated decisions on issues that aren't related to quotations. Therefore, if it's important to you, since you're an active wikipedia user I suggest that you also raise this issue there. Sams 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention w:Category:Murdered Native Americans. -- Benn M 23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object to both Wikipedia categories on the "Native American" part (not the murdered part, as long as it's supported by facts). But I've already said I'm on no crusade on categories, and this goes double for Wikipedia. I am mainly interested in preventing the importing of such crusades into an understaffed Wikiquote without good reason. It's like an "unfunded mandate" &mdash; we add complexity to WQ without the means to maintain it, except, of course, that we do it to ourselves voluntarily. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like a contradiction to me when you say "add complexity to WQ", because the simple option is to use the common "Native American", while you're making an argument that the common terminology shouldn't be used, thus introducing complexities. So how come that you say in this context that you're interested in preventing complexities? Sams 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The complexity I refer to is adding the never-ending arguments that ensue from using inherently controversial classifications to our already overextended set of unresolved issues. I was not in favor of introducing categories by nationality, geography, or ethnic background. I realize that it's inevitable that we'll have these; I just didn't want to deal with it so soon. Every active user on Wikiquote has at least 5 or 6 things they feel we should add, modify, standardize, or otherwise change, and many of them are unique to each user. The resulting pile-up of administrative work is a real headache. But I'll shut up on this particular issue now. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.