we categorize by ethnicity, not race. For this reason I think we should highly scrutinize placing anyone in a Native American Category. That is categorizing by race, not ethnicity. We need to doubly scrutinize in the pre-1850 time period. Pocahontas is not an undifferentiated Native America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean here. Mason (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization by ethnicity means the people in the Category see themselves as part of an ethnic group. The Ethnic group an Ojibwe person would have saw themselves as part of in 1801 would have Bern Ojibwe. Not "Native American" or another name referring to such a large grouping. We should respect this in Categorizing, and not place them in categories that group them based on such broad groupings thry would not self identify with. An Ojibwe writer active in 1989 might well see himself as a Native American writer and belong in that category. However especially artists who use traditional artistic practices of their eth ic group, such as Hopi basket weavers, I think we need to be Co scions of the categorizing by ethnicity and not race rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please run this by folks who are active in the native american projects. Your interpretation seems extremely inconsistent with how these categories have been treated.Mason (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through your comments on the native american pages. I think that it is great that you're seeking input! However, I'm not sure that folks over there will really understand what you're getting at, as many people consider native american people to be both a parent nationality and an ethnicity. I encourage you to move slowly (if at all) on this issue because I think it would be extremely problematic if you unilaterally declared that Native American people weren't Americans. Tribal sovereignty, nationality, and ethnicity is very complicated. I think that unless you get a resounding yes in support, you should leave the status quo intact. (I'm trying to avoid another situation like when you removed American women writers from American writers.) Mason (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are understanding. A Bavajo who dies in 1845 is clearly not an American. If the person lived in Tucson or Santa Fe and died in that year they would be clearly Mexican, and go in the Mexican Category. As I mention a Wampanoag whaler from Massachusetts who died in 1845 would clearly be American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am understanding your point, but I am trying to urge you to be cautious on this issue given the subject matter. Mason (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not apply Mexican categories pre-1821[edit]
We really should not have anyone who died in 1820 or earlier in a Mexican Category. Yes, there was a Mexico in 1820 and before, and so dome were called Mexican. However it was the city of Mexico and the state right around it. Yucatan, Guadalajara, even Puebla, let alone Tampico or Hermosillo or Tijuana are not part of Mexican. Since we almost never use demonymns for sub-national entities it makes no sense for pre-1821 State of Mexico. All the more so because when we are referring to something totally distinct with a demonym we should be clear. In 1819 there was a New Mexico, but it was distinct and different from Mexico. With many other places like San Luis Potosi between them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't empty the categories out of process. You can draft a proposal/suggest a rename. But please don't gut the categories. It's disruptive. Mason (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a solution for this. I would not feel comfortable upmerging to New Spain as this stretched from the Philippines to the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that was in part my concern as well. The folks in the current Mexican categories are more similar to each other than to the parent of New Spain. Perhaps, a disclaimer stating something to the effect that this category is maps onto Early modern mexico or something to that effect? Mason (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you look at Captaincies of the Spanish Empire you realize that the core of New Spain is different than the outlying captaincies. The main result of this is that we seem to lack a clear Category for People from the Captsincy of Yucatan, and we do not have one yet for thr Provincias Intenas, which was formed in 1776, but the core of New Spain could be a Category to put articles in, and we would just categorize those from the outer areas separately. On the other hand you have noticeable movement between the various areas of New Spain, so we want to treat such based on what it really is, and not anachronistically label it based on later boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove people from the century they've already been classified in. For example, when you removed Pavlos Prosalentis, from 19th-century Greek sculptors and 18th-century Greek sculptors, you placed them into sculptors. If you must remove people from the nationality that defines them... please put them in the X-century sculptors, not sculptors. Regardless of whether you agree with the lead that Prosalentis is "the first professional sculptor in modern Greece", he's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Mason (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prosalentus was a subject of the Republic of Venice, of France, and then of the United States of the Ionian Islands. The Greek sculptors tree is a set of categories for people who were nationals of Greece. Prosalentus never was a national of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. He's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Please leave sculptors in the proper century. Mason (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What year should we switch from Thirteen Colonies to US in Ave names[edit]
I am wondering what year we should switch from 13 Colonies to US in place names for events. I am thinking 1776 makes sense. However it is not until 1783 the post-war boundaries are somewhat fixed, although Detroit is de facto British until 1796. A lot of articles just use city and state, which avoids the issue. It looks like editors have either used 1776 maybe ignored things and used US earlier. I think for now I will not change any until I get to an event before July 4, 1776, although I will let stand post-1776 uses of British America or other terms at least in cases where it can be argued the place at the time of the event was actually under British control. I am reviewing 1779 births, so I will not find any even potential conflicts for a little bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
