Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands

List?

This article is really just a list. I therefore propose moving it to List of Southeastern tribes. -- Donald Albury 13:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be fleshed out into a proper article. Will work on that in the future. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plains Indians which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved. Convincing rationale. -- Hadal (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Southeastern tribes → Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands – I'm reproposing a name change for this article to Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands, since people could legitimate ask "Southeastern tribes" of where? Africa, Asia, South America, Mesoamerica?? The term "Southeastern Woodlands" is a specific region in the world that would distinguish these tribes from others. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Previous discussion of this issue occurred here. —  AjaxSmack  01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion almost completely revolved about the "Plains Indians", particularly the use of the term "Indian", and you yourself pointed out that no one was discussing the "Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands" proposal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment how about Southeastern tribes of North America instead of wondering which woodlands occupying which southeast that is? 65.94.47.217 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, I was wondering that too. I think that's a perfect alternative suggestion if you also take into account that "Southeastern tribes" is likely to be the common name for the category. Rennell435 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The Caribbean is part of North America and is certainly further southeast than the Southeastern Woodlands. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
      • Comment there were/are tribes in the woods of Southeast Asia, and Southeast China (like the 100 yuet). And Southeast Europe... etc. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering how this correlates with other pages, such as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Native Americans in the United States, Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. How specific do we get without creating an overly long article title? As it is, I agree with Uyvsdis proposal, just wondering how it relates to other pages. Heiro 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Articles for the North American cultural areas are: Inuit (instead of Indigenous peoples of the Arctic), Aridoamerica, Indigenous peoples of the Subarctic, Indigenous peoples of California, Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin, Mesoamerica/Indigenous peoples of Mexico, Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands, Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Plains Indians, Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau, Southeastern tribes, no article for the southwest tribes (only Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Divisions), Indigenous peoples of the Subarctic, no article for Caribbean tribes, no collective article for Central American tribes (only Indigenous peoples of Panama). South American articles are organized by country. So "Indigenous peoples of" is the norm, there are several exceptions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    • Support-Sounds good to me, in the interests of trying to create a coherent system, your proposal seems to be in line with the majority of similar subject pages. Heiro 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Even though it is a longer, less intuitive name. Many of the entities listed are not tribes in the strict sense, but rather chiefdoms. By the way, I notice that Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands still includes a List of Eastern Woodland tribes. -- Donald Albury 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title is unattested original research. And where is Southeastern Woodlands? There's no article about at Wikipedia yet so it can hardly be more intuitive than "Southeastern". Southeastern tribes of the United States would deal with the clarity issue. —  AjaxSmack  01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  File:Nordamerikanische Kulturareale en.png

  • Comment. Southeastern Woodlands is a common term for the cultural region for the peoples listed in this article: Google search. As numerous published books on the subject use the phrase "Southeastern Woodlands," it's hardly original research. I'll furnish citations from scholarly sources in the article for the use of the term. "Eastern Woodlands" is certainly more commonly used; however, in Native American studies the north and south woodlands are usually separated due to cultural and linguistic differences, as well as the sheer number of different peoples in both regions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    • "Southeastern tribes of the United States" wouldn't be accurate, because, as the article already mentions some southeastern tribes span the Mexico-Texas border. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
      • The Handbook of North American Indians gives a good background on the southeastern cultural region on pages 3-7. For more background on the use of "Woodlands" as a cultural term for Indigenous peoples of the Eastern mainland of North America, see Woodland period. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
        • None of the tribes listed in the article were living even close to Mexico as the map used in the article shows. The only Handbook of North American Indians I'm familiar with is the multi-volume Smithsonian reference work. If you're referring to this, do you have a volume # and a quote of usage of your proposed title? —  AjaxSmack  23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
          • If you look at the list itself, several of the peoples listed span the US/Mexican border. The map is apparently Norwegian and says it's based on Kroeber; however, in Kroeber's 1939 classification scheme the Tonkawa and Karanawa, who have both lived in Mexico at different points of their history, were included as being marginally southeast (Jackson and Fogelson 6). Clark Wissler goes even further to include lands up to the Carrizo's territory as being southeast. Classification of Native American cultural regions are certainly not set in stone. As now cited the article, Jackson and Fogelson's "Introduction" of the Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 14 discusses in depth the southeastern cultural classification. On page 7, they write: "...E. W. Voegelin (1944) examined native mortuary customs through the Eastern North American, finding links connecting three subregions–Northwest Woodlands, Southeastern Woodlands, and the Prairie-Plains." Throughout most of the book (and most books on Southeastern Woodlands peoples), the assumption is already made that only continental North America, north of Mesoamerica is being discussed, so "southeast" is an adequate designation. Wikipedia is global is scope, so "southeast" is insufficient. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
            • OK, thanks. I still think the proposal is clumsy and a bit jargonish ("indigenous peoples" and "Southeastern Woodlands" are not typically used to describe the subjects by ordinary American speakers) but the present title is lacking as well. I withdraw my opposition. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose nom's suggestion as per the reasons stated above. Although I would support a move to either of the two alternatives suggested by other user's: Southeastern tribes of North America or Southeastern tribes of the United States. Rennell435 (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The problem remains, as Donald Albury pointed out, that many of these groups are not tribes - some are confederacies, some villages, some chiefdoms. This cultural area expands beyond the United States. If Indigenous peoples of Southeast North America were proposed, how would it logically not include the Caribbean, which is still part of North America? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Comment I would add, that if we retain "tribes" in the name of this article, then we should look at removing all the entities that were not tribes. For instance, the Timucua were a heterogenous collection of chiefdoms that shared a common language, but never (as far as we know) a common political organization, while the Creek people spoke two different languages (the concept of a "Creek" entity was geographical, invented by whites). "People" is a more inclusive term than "tribe", not bogged down in the question of "what is a tribe?" -- Donald Albury 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES says, "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view." So discussion should focus on the existing and proposed names, as opposed to new names with their own problems. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well the current name is the most common name for the grouping. So any proposal without that name in the title is technically inventing or choosing a less-clear name. So the issues with ambiguity need to be dealt with in a way that incorporates that name. Rennell435 (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a geocultural classification of peoples, which is the most common way of studying indigenous peoples of the Americas. "Southeastern" is too general; "tribes" is factually incorrect. If you read WP:TITLECHANGES, it says the discussion should stick to the pro-existing name and the proposed name and discourages introducing additional compromise names. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support. The term "Southeastern Woodlands" has been cited here and in the article. "Indigenous peoples" is the best way to describe a heterogeneous mix of indigenous ethnic groups and polities, as those found in this cultural region. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support as per the norm of most of the articles and modern terminologies. David G. Anderson; Robert C. Mainfort (27 June 2002). The Woodland Southeast. University of Alabama Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780817311377. Retrieved 12 June 2011.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. "Southeastern tribes" is ambiguous, and some scholars consider the word "tribe" to be problematic. "Southeastern Woodlands" is clear and uses common terminology. —Kevin Myers 06:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090207140451/http://crt.state.la.us:80/parks/ipvertypt.aspx to http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/ipvertypt.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930100544/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/I/IN015.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/I/IN015.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Listing Saturiwa and Tacatacuru under Mocama

Currently, the Mocama Saturiwa, and Tacatacuru are listed as separate entities, but Tacatacuru and Saturiwa were both tribes under the Mocama. I propose they be placed under the Mocama in the hierarchy. KiwiNova (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The articles Mocama, Tacatacuru and Saturiwa agree that Tacatacuru and Saturiwa were chiefdoms in what the Spanish called Mocama Province, and that both spoke the Mocama dialect of the Timucua language. (I prefer calling Tacatacuru and Saturiwa chiefdoms, while Mocama has been called a tribe, although I think 'tribe' is an ill fit for Timucua political organization.) In any case, I support showing Tacatacuru and Saturiwa as sub-parts of Mocama. - Donald Albury 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)