text:
Virtua Tennis (video game)

Virtua Tennis, known in Japan as Power Smash (パワースマッシュ), is a 1999 tennis arcade game created by Sega. The player competes through tennis tournaments in an arcade mode. It was ported to the Dreamcast in 2000, and to Windows in 2002. A Game Boy Advance version was also released in 2002, followed by an N-Gage version in 2003. For the home console market, the game was expanded with the introduction of the campaign mode.

A sequel, Virtua Tennis 2, was released for arcades in 2001 and was ported to the Dreamcast the same year and to the PlayStation 2 in 2002. An updated version was released on the PlayStation Portable in 2005, under the name Virtua Tennis: World Tour. 2006 saw the release of Virtua Tennis 3 for arcades (using the Sega Lindbergh hardware). Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable and Windows versions were released in 2007. Virtua Tennis 2009 was released in 2009 on the Windows, PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii platforms. Virtua Tennis 4 was released in 2011 on the same four platforms, but also had an arcade version which was released later, as well as a PlayStation Vita port released in 2012. The latest addition to the franchise, Virtua Tennis Challenge, was released in 2012 on Android and iOS.

Arcade
The player must win five matches played on different surfaces and venues to win a tournament. If the player performs well enough, he is challenged by Master, one of the game's bosses.

Exhibition
This is a single match in which the options are customizable.

The match can be played as singles or doubles with up to four human players (two for singles). The duration can be varied between one game and one set. Other options include the court that the match is played on and the skill of the opponent(s).

World Circuit
Users have to win matches and complete training exercises in order to progress and unlock new ones. The user enters with a rank of 300th, which improves as matches are won. These matches are unlocked by completing easier matches or training exercises. The focus of the training exercises are to be fun, rather than realistic. Each exercise has three levels, with the difficulty increasing progressively. By completing the hardest difficulty with a certain amount of time left or points scored, an outfit is unlocked, which players can wear in all modes.

Playable Characters

 * 🇺🇸 Jim Courier
 * 🇫🇷 Cédric Pioline
 * Tim Henman
 * 🇩🇪 Tommy Haas
 * 🇦🇺 Mark Phillipoussis
 * Carlos Moyá
 * 🇸🇪 Thomas Johansson
 * 🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov

Tour Competitions

 * 🇦🇺 Australia Challenge
 * 🇫🇷 French Cup
 * 🇺🇸 U.S. Super Tennis
 * The Old England Championships
 * Sega Grand Match

Development
Virtua Tennis was developed by Sega AM3. The producer, Mie Kumagai, wanted to create a game that appealed to broad demographics of players, taking note of the large number of one-on-one fighting games that proliferated throughout Japanese arcades during the 1990s. She also wished to replicate the critical and commercial achievements of Sega AM2's soccer title Virtua Striker, which was directed by Satoshi Mifune and was a hit among a wide range of age groups. Kumagai began planning a game that could serve as a both a fun, casual experience and competitive, hardcore experience for people to play with friends and family in arcades and at home. Her initial proposal, a basketball game was rejected, while her alternative proposal, a tennis game, was accepted. However, the potential for the project's success was still met with a large amount of skepticism within Sega. After Kumagai acquired a programmer, they made a trip to a tennis school for research, and began designing a unique paddle controller. By twisting this paddle, the user could switch between forehand and backhand shots, but after months of in-house experimentation it proved too difficult to operate. Taking advice from Mifune, the team simplified the controls to a more traditional joystick and buttons. User reception at location testing and in Sega's offices proved to be very positive and development thereafter was smooth. Sega executives feared the game's original Japanese title, Power Smash, would not translate well to overseas audiences. For its North American and European localizations, the name adopted the familiar Virtua label and was changed to Virtua Tennis.

Reception
The Dreamcast version received "universal acclaim", the Game Boy Advance version received "favorable" reviews, and the PC version received "average" reviews, while the N-Gage version received "generally unfavorable reviews", according to the review aggregation website Metacritic. Blake Fischer of NextGen called the Dreamcast version "The best four-player game in a long time, and an excellent single- and two-player diversion. Don't avoid this because it's not football – you'll get more playtime out of it than you think." In Japan, Famitsu gave the same console version a score of 33 out of 40.

Also in Japan, Game Machine listed the arcade version in their February 1, 2000 issue as the third most-successful arcade game of the previous year.

John Thompson of AllGame gave the same arcade version four-and-a-half stars out of five, saying: "With an excellent engine, beautiful graphics and sounds, and an intuitive, deep gameplay system, Virtua Tennis is one of the best arcade games in recent memory. Sega dominated arcades of the late '90s, and with excellent titles such as this, it's easy to see why." Bryan Melville, however, gave the Dreamcast version four stars, calling it "a game that will go down as one of the best arcade ports on the 128-bit system." Edge gave the same Dreamcast version eight out of ten, saying: "Were it not for the irritation caused by the almost unbeatable players in later stages and the inability to play more than a single set per match, Virtua Tennis would have been a near-perfect sports game." The D-Pad Destroyer of GamePro called the same console version "one of the most purely fun sports games in a long time, up there with Sega Bass Fishing in the Games You're Embarrassed To Enjoy category. If you're a sports fan, go get it." Four-Eyed Dragon said of the Game Boy Advance version: "Even with sluggish controls and so-so visuals, Virtua Tennis still delivers, especially in the winning career mode where you train your custom-made athletes (both male and female) to become the number-one ranked in the world."

The Dreamcast version has been ranked in the top 100 games of all time by IGN both in 2005 (#91) and 2003 (#89). Game Informer placed the Dreamcast version 50th on their top 100 video games of all time in 2001. It was also featured in Guinness World Records 2017: Gamer's Edition where it says that the Dreamcast version got GameRankings score of 91.37% based on 33 reviews.

The Dreamcast version was a runner-up for the "Best Multiplayer Game" and "Best Sports Game (Traditional)" awards at GameSpot's Best and Worst of 2000 Awards, both of which went to Quake III Arena and NFL 2K1, respectively. During the 4th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences nominated the Dreamcast version for the "Console Sports", "Console Game of the Year" and "Game of the Year" awards; the first two went to SSX, while the latter went to Diablo II. Two years later, the Game Boy Advance version was also a runner-up for the website's "Best Sports Game on Game Boy Advance" award, which went to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3. The PC version was a runner-up for PC Gamer US' "2002 Best Sports Game" award, which ultimately went to Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003.

title: Virtua Tennis (video game)


text:
Bernard Germain de Lacépède

Bernard-Germain-Étienne de La Ville-sur-Illon, comte de Lacépède or La Cépède (26 December 1756 – 6 October 1825) was a French naturalist and an active freemason. He is known for his contribution to the Comte de Buffon's great work, the Histoire Naturelle.

Biography
Lacépède was born at Agen in Guienne. His education was carefully conducted by his father, and the early perusal of Buffon's Natural History (Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière) awakened his interest in that branch of study, which absorbed his chief attention. His leisure he devoted to music, in which, besides becoming a good performer on the piano and organ, he acquired considerable mastery of composition, two of his operas (which were never published) meeting with the high approval of Gluck; in 1781–1785 he also brought out in two volumes his Poétique de la musique.

Meantime he wrote two treatises, Essai sur l'électricité (1781) and Physique générale et particulière (1782–1784), which gained him the friendship of Buffon, who in 1785 appointed him subdemonstrator in the Jardin du Roi, and proposed that he continue Buffon's Histoire naturelle. This continuation was published under the titles Histoire naturelle des quadrupèdes ovipares et des serpents. Tome premier (1788) and Histoire naturelle des serpents''. Tome second'' (1789). After the French Revolution Lacépède became a member of the Legislative Assembly, but during the Reign of Terror he left Paris, his life having become endangered by his disapproval of the massacres. When the Jardin du Roi was reorganised as the Jardin des Plantes and as the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in 1793, Lacépède was appointed to the chair allocated to the study of reptiles and fishes. In 1798, he published the first volume of Histoire naturelle des poissons, the fifth volume appearing in 1803, and in 1804 appeared his Histoire des cétacées. From this period until his death the part he took in politics prevented him making any further contribution of importance to science. In 1799, he became a senator, in 1801 president of the senate (a role he also fulfilled in 1807–08 and 1811–13), in 1803 grand chancellor of the Legion of Honor, in 1804 minister of state, and at the Bourbon Restoration in 1819 he was created a peer of France.

He died at Épinay-sur-Seine. During the latter part of his life he wrote Histoire générale physique et civile de l'Europe, published posthumously in 18 volumes, 1826.

He was elected perpetual secretary of the French Academy of Sciences at the Institute of France in 1796, a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1806 and a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1812.

Lacépède was initiated into freemasonry at 22 years old at Les Neuf Sœurs lodge in Paris, by Jérôme Lalande the worshipfull master himself, who wanted a naturalist for his prestigious lodge. In 1785, Lacépède created his own lodge : "Les Frères Initiés". After the Revolution, he helped Cambacérès to rebuild a French freemasonry submitted to the Emperor, and joined "Saint-Napoléon" lodge where General Kellermann was worshipfull master. He finished his masonic life as dignitary of the Suprême Conseil de France.

Evolution
Lacépède was an early evolutionary thinker. He argued for the transmutation of species. He believed that species change over time and may go extinct from geological cataclysms or become "metamorphosed" into new species. In his book Histoire naturelle des poissons, he wrote:

"'The species can undergo such a large number of modifications in its forms and qualities, that without losing its vital capacity, it may be, by its latest conformation and properties, farther removed from its original state than from a different species: it is in that case metamorphosed into a new species.'"

Tributes

 * Lacepede Bay in South Australia, and the Lacepede Islands off the northern coast of Western Australia, are named after him.
 * The street Rue Lacépède near the Jardin des Plantes and the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris was named after him.
 * A species of gecko endemic to Mauritius, Phelsuma cepediana, commonly known as the blue-tailed day gecko, is named in his honour.

Works

 * Les ages de la nature et histoire de l'espèce humaine. Paris 1830 p.m.
 * Histoire naturelle de l'homme. Pitois-Le Vrault, Paris 1827 p.m.
 * Histoire générale, physique et civile de l'Europe. Cellot, Mame, Delaunay-Vallée & de Mat, Paris, Brüssel 1826 p.m.
 * Histoire naturelle des quadrupèdes ovipares, serpents, poissons et cétacées. Eymery, Paris 1825.
 * Histoire naturelle des cétacées. Plassan, Paris 1804.
 * Notice historique sur la vie et les ouvrages de Dolomieu. Bossange, Paris 1802.
 * La menagerie du Museum national d'histoire naturelle. Miger, Paris 1801–04.
 * Discours d'ouverture et de clôture du cours de zoologie. Plassan, Paris 1801.
 * Discours d'ouverture et de clôture du cours d'histoire naturelle. Plassan, Paris 1799.
 * Discours d'ouverture et de clôture du cours d'histoire naturelle des animaux vertébrés et a sang rouge. Plassan, Paris 1798.
 * Discours d'ouverture du Cours d'histoire naturelle. Paris 1797.
 * Histoire naturelle des serpents. Tome second. de Thou, Paris 1789.
 * Histoire naturelle des quadrupèdes ovipares et des serpens. Tome premier.. de Thou, Paris 1788.
 * Vie de Buffon. Maradan, Amsterdam 1788.
 * La poétique de la musique. Paris 1785.
 * Physique générale et particulière. Paris 1782–84.
 * Essai sur l'électricité naturelle et artificielle. Paris 1781.
 * Essai sur l'électricité naturelle et artificielle. Paris 1781.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bernard Germain de Lacépède


text:
List of people from New Brunswick

This is a list of notable people who are from New Brunswick, Canada, or have spent a large part or formative part of their career in that province.

By city or town
Click on the "people from..." link below to go to the full page of notable people, or click "show" next to each page to view the table within this page.

By county
Click on the "people from..." link below to go to the full page of notable people, or click "show" next to each page to view the table within this page.

title: List of people from New Brunswick


text:
Talk:André Bachand (Progressive Conservative MP)

Untitled
whats a Reeve?

I think it's like a mayor- especially of townships. I got that info of the parliament website, so I'm not too sure. User: Earl Andrew 20:47 December 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

-What's a "Young Turk" ?

POV in article
There are intentionally insulting references in this article to the reasons of why Bachand was elected, saying that he was first elected on the "coattails" of Jean Charest, implying that he was a sycophant to Charest, explaining that this is why he was elected. That is a highly controversial statement and the way it is worded is intentionally insulting.--R-41 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The statement is obviously the point-of-view of the editor who added the info. We can't provide reasons why we think something happened, so the statement should probably be edited. A neutral sentence could read "Bachand was first elected as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1997, one of five PC MPs elected that year in Quebec." If you believe something in a WP:BLP article to be highly controversial, than remove it and explain why in the edit summary, but I wouldn't go as far as stating what the editor was "implying", as that would also be point-of-view. Cmr08 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Heavenly Mother (Mormonism)

Mormonism
Per your comments, there are no real authoritative sources for this doctrine, except for acknowledgement. The closest is two of the official proclamations ("origin of man" and "the family"). The Church is scarce on sources and has stated that discussion of a Heavenly Mother is speculative.

Personally, I have absolutely no idea why this page was created. This forum is not the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and every statement, doctrine or obscure teaching does not need to be fully explained. Use Wisdom (incidentally, "Wisdom" is another early Hebrew name for a female deity) in the creation of these pages. If it comes up as a question, address it. There are enough blank Mormon stubs that need to be filled out to keep us busy for a few months, without the creation of new pages. Remember the point of Wikipedia - NPOV, relevant, accurate, etc. Perhaps I am wrong in this, and can be persuaded, but pages like this and Second Anointing are speculative and not founded in strong current teachings, and are therefore a bit sketchy to write about (aside from a historical or cultural perspective). The official, authoritative information is simply not there (see my comments about the correlation program in the Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk pages and archives). I'm probably wrong in my cautions, as I do believe that open information leads to better understanding. Anyway, I do like your edits, contribution and fresh perspective. Keep up the good work. Visorstuff 14:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks. There are many Mormon doctrines are either obsolete or not publicized, yet have great historical or cultural significance.  I think the purpose of "X (Mormonism)" articles (as opposed to articles describing a particular church), should be to reflect de facto Mormonism---which is not necessarily the same as the official pronouncements of a church.  An encyclopedia article on a doctrine should describe doctrines, not just official creeds.  As a lifelong Utah Mormon, I can state first-hand that the doctrine of Heavenly Mother is a well-accepted and important (though not advertised) doctrine in the LDS Church.  Indeed, it is gaining increasing importance among Mormon feminists.  (A feminist professor at Brigham Young University was fired several years ago because she encouraged students to pray to the Heavenly Mother.)  Moreover, this doctrine has contributed (rightly or wrongly) to the new phenomenon of dialog between Mormonism and New Age ideas.  The doctrine is persistently brought up in anti-Mormon discourse, and I think that both Mormon critics and Mormon apologists have a lot to say on the subject.COGDEN 16:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I too am a born-and-raised Utah Mormon (not sure of your point on that) until completion of my undergraduate degree at BYU (not counting summer working in other states, archeaological field schools and my mission). I hope to move back some day, to be near my family. However, the church does take an official stance on doctrines - see Common Latter-day Saint perceptions and Outer Darkness's talk page and discussions for details (also info about correlation and official doctrines at Talk:Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). This is the whole purpose of the Correlation program. There are many things in the church that are believed by the members at large, that are simple not true - Saturday's Warrior and My Turn of Earth are full of them! Though they may or may not be true, or were taught by earlier church leaders, does not make them official church doctrines. Though the doctrine of heavenly mother is taught by members of the church and is officially acknowledged by the Church, additional information is speculative. Some early brethren taught that there were more than one, Some taught that there is only one for this earth. Some taught that there is only one. Who knows. There are fights among LDS scholars about subjects like this, the three degrees of glory, the three divisions in the pre-mortal life, what it exactly means to be a god, etc (familiar with Joseph Fielding Smith's comments about speculation on the nature of Intelligence and Spirit? and his and president Kimball's comments about doctrinal speculation? his quote is often used in comments about the Adam-God Theory).

 * I think we should (and I have tried) to differentiate between common Mormon belief and official Church doctrine. Even President Hinckley was slammed by anti-Mormons for saying that we don't teach or even necessarily believe we'll be gods of our own planets to Mike Wallace. He was saying we simply don't understand what it means to be a god, and that is the official church stance. Any additional information, although it may be correct is speculation and not official doctrine. Perhaps we need an article on Commonly believed Mormon Doctrines versus Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The thing is doctrines do not become obsolete. They may change, but doctrine is truth and adherence to official belief. Application of the doctrine changes as well and history is easily taken out of context. We will never understand plural marriage, because we didn't live it. Any time it is brought up in Church, it is the duty of the presiding authorities to stop any discussion on it - per OD #1. We simply do not teach the doctrine or practice it anymore. Please understand we are not attacking you or these edits. They are good and probably needed. We realize this is an open source forum and that all of our intents are good to share information that is needed to clarify point of thought. We appreciate your work and look forward to more. Just be careful no to misrepresent official doctrine for "a general authority once said X, so it must be true." I just wish people would read the Ensign more so they can understand many of the clarifications. Visorstuff 17:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My initial feeling when I saw this article pop up: *Sigh*. Given all of the other Church and Mormon articles that need more material (like patriarchal blessing) and improvement (like History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I question the wisdom of starting an article like this at this point. Oh well. B 16:23, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * That's a fair statement; however, one of the advantages of open source projects like Wikipedia is that people are free to develop areas that interest them most. Eventually, there will be a detailed and interesting Heavenly Mother article, and I'm hoping it's sooner than later.COGDEN 16:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * What?! Don't you know that this part of Wikipedia is BoNoMoJopedia?! You are supposed to develop articles that interest me! J.K. LOL B 04:11, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

More inclusive article
Since Mormonism is not the only religion that believes in a heavenly mother, should this article be reformatted to be more inclusive and not so LDS-centric? --Kmsiever 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; however, as I know very little about other religions beliefs in this matter - I can't help - perhaps there is another article on God (female) that we could put at the top of the article. -- Trödel 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think there is the concept of heavenly mother in Hinduism, that is the universal God finding expression in the form of a goddess as well as a god. I am no expert however.  I am sure that many New Age type people have the same kind of concept. Steve Dufour 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term Heavenly mother is lds but the artical should be linked to other goddesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.100.191 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually World Mission Society Church of God worships Heavenly Mother as well doctrine is different but still Christian and Heavenly Mother wife of God the Father and what not--174.45.204.124 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference/Note Proposal
I propose that instead of inline cites (Origin, p 339-340), we use footnotes and reference the bibliography - as opposed to including the cites in the bibliography. Doing this would look like this:

In addition, members of the Anointed Quorum, a highly select spiritual organization in the early Church that was privy to Smith's teachings, also acknowledged the existence of a Heavenly Mother. Also, the Times and Seasons published a letter to the editor from a person named "Joseph's Specked Bird" in which the author stated that in the pre-Earth life, the spirit "was a child with his father and mother in heaven".

References

Bibliography I also think we should use Harvard Reference cite style. Any objections? -- Trödel 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Joseph's Specked Bird, Letter to the Editor, Times and Seasons 6: 892 (May 1, 1845).
 * Pratt, Orson, Journal of Discourses 18:292 (Nov. 12, 1876).
 * Wilcox, Linda P., "The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven", Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, edited by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher and Lavina Fielding Anderson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 64-77.
 * Woodruff, Wilford, Journal of Discourses 18:31-32 (June 27, 1875).

 * I think it's a good idea. I have no preference for a style though. --Kmsiever 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If you want to change the citations I've added to a uniform style (or offer better citations), I have no objection. 67.60.44.201 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops... I wasn't signed in when I made those citation edits, or when I added the above comment (as 67.60.44.201). This is my user ID. Eric.d.dixon 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks - the above was implemented earlier this week - I'll add the Lee book to the bibliography. Generally I think (and this is only my view not a policy) that websites should rarely be included in a bibliography. -- Trödel 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of "her"
While I understand that the h should be capitalized in Church writings, is it really proper in this case? We're not supposed to be writing from a POV. Dead Horse 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint vs Latter-day Saint
Why are there two sections on Latter Day Saint belefs? I understand the Wiki naming convention, but do we really need to cover the non-Utah denominations on this one? It seems to only really be Latter-day Saints who are being addressed.

Merge the article
Also, maybe we can find a more generic article. Goddess? Mother Earth? Something where more inclusion of other belief systems can be covered? "Heavenly Mother" is a very LDS term. Bytebear 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I think trying to merge it into Mother Goddess, as has been suggested, might offend some people. Steve Dufour 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be a bad move. The Latter-day Saint belief does not view Heavely Mother as a Mother Goddess in the traditional sense of the word. In the extent to which the term God can be aplied to her it is when used as in the plural man and woman one unit sense of the word.

This does not lend itself to being considered in the Mother Goddess topic. You are perfectly free to add a mention to this in the Mother Goddess wed site, but I do not think such a move would be wise. However I think this concept is different enough, since it is an outgrowth of the title of Father held by the Traditional Christian God that it desrves treatment in its own article.- John Pack Lambert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 April 2007

 * The Latter-day Saints, however, are not the only ones who believe in a Heavenly Mother, and they do not have a monopoly on the doctrine. --Kmsiever 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Here's what I would suggest. Merge this article with Mother Goddess, and then create a new article entitled Heavenly Mother (Latter Day Saints) to discuss LDS-specific beliefs. If the Branch Davidians would be offenced by Mother Goddess, then we can combine LDS and Branch Davidian beliefs in a new article entitled Heavenly Mother (Christianity).  CO GD EN  19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not merge this article, I was looking for specific information on LDS doctrine or acknowledgements regarding Heavenly Mother. I understand that other religions have a female deity or mother goddess, but it seems discriminatory to not give a religion its own specific page. I say the same about any other sect, religion, cult, atheism or whatever spiritual beliefs.

Statement Removed from Article
Happy to see you removed this statement from your article:

"or it may be that her role, unlike those of Jesus Christ and God the Father, does not impact eternal salvation"

Some reasons:

John16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send [him/(her/that one)] unto you. John16:8 And when [he/(she)] is come, [he/(she)] ***will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment*** John16:9 ==>Of sin, because they believe not on me<==

Mark3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Prv8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. Prv8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: ***all they that hate me love death***. Prv9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Section Sequence
I organized the sections in alpha order, as the present order appears to be simply the order of creation. Any objections? Any other sequencing schemes? WBardwin 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Citations
Regarding the section:

“Due to the prevailing belief among some Latter-day Saints that plural marriage is a true principle that is practiced in heaven, some members of the LDS Church consider that there are more than one Mothers in Heaven.”

The phrase, “prevailing belief among some Latter-day Saints,” appears contradictory. The word “prevailing” is synonymous with “popular, general and widespread.” Therefore, the belief could be held by some Latter-day Saints, or it could be prevalent among Latter-day Saints in general, but it does not make sense to say that it is prevailing among some Latter-day Saints.

In addition, the idea that some LDS people believe that ‘plural marriage is a true principle that is practiced in heaven,’ is a rather extraordinary claim which, in my opinion, needs to be backed up with its own citation.

Also, while the claim that some members of LDS Church believe that God the Father has multiple wives is technically true, it can be misleading. While some members of the LDS Church believe in this idea, it is also true that some members of the LDS Church believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. This does not mean that they derived their belief from LDS doctrine or that they constitute a significant portion of the LDS population (or at least not a significant enough portion to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article).

If the author does mean to imply that a significant number of LDS adherents hold this belief, then it is my opinion that this extraordinary claim requires a better citation than a reference to two comments in a blog entry. To be clear, however, I am not calling for the removal of this statement so much as I am calling for a better citation which can match the serious nature of this claim.

 * I am calling for the statement's removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.231 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orson Pratt
The quote in question attributed to Orson Pratt states that it is lawful only to worship the "King of Heaven", not the Queen. That does not sound like he is advocating worshipping Heavenly Mother. The Jade Knight 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heavenly parents
Cogden, in the section on "Acknowledgment of the theology," you mention in the proclamation on the family the "Church officially stated that each person is a "spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents"," and use this as a proof point of the doctrine. I know some both inside and out of the church believe this means Father-Christ are parents of all mankind, or that we existed in the same/similar family unit as we do now, but believe that the vagueness on this in the proclamation was purposeful to not quite acknowledge a heavenly mother. Do you think a quick treatment of this would muddy the waters, or help clarify that there are other interpretations of the statement in this section? -Visorstuff 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Does it bear mentioning, under "Origin of the Heavenly Mother theology", that the doctrine as presented by Joseph Smith originally was (or is) supposedly "controversial" and "differed dramatically from modern Christian consensus"? Define "Christian consensus"? What relevance would "controversial" be? And different churches and groups in Christianity have and do disagree on every topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.188.26 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eliza R. Snow being a prophetess
I recently deleted a sentence that had been marked for support since February. It was then returned today by no less than two editors. Though I find the return a knee-jerk reaction, I would appreciate if you could share your reasoning. Can you please explain the importance of noting that Eliza R. Snow was recognized as prophetess; however, the actual quote is, "Eliza R. Snow was known as 'Zion’s Poetess, 'prophetess,' 'priestess,' and 'presidentess.'" She was never looked upon as a prophet and this reference misleads readers to a different conclusion, which is not acceptable. She was known first and foremost as Zion's poetess; the other terms were superlatives, but even in the reference no support was given to the context of use of the other terms. Are you advocating that she was actually seen as a prophet by the LDS people and held in similar regard as the Prophet of the Church?

My main issue is the topic of the article is Heavenly Mother. Out of the blue, dropped at the beginning of a paragraph is this sentence about Eliza being a prophetess. It then reverts to relevant information on the topic. It is off topic; is the concept of heavenly mother somehow enhanced by Eliza R. Snow being known as a prophetess, etc? Or is the intent to somehow further lend importance to the poem she wrote; that it was considered a revelation by Latter-day Saints? That is pure synthesis and is not supported by the reference.

I think the statement should be deleted because it just does not lend value to the topic. It does not "make" the hymn cited any more important to LDS. More importantly, it attempts to lead the reader to a position that is not supported by LDS theology; there is only one prophet that leads the church at a time and only one that can declare doctrine for the Church. Eliza was never that individual. Further, the cite takes superlatives used to describe an individual and attempts to lead readers to actually think LDS felt she was a prophetess of the Church. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with StormRider - I only reverted your edit because I found the corrected link that was dead, which is why I thought you removed the statement. But you are right - it doesn't have a ton of relevance, though the information should probably be moved to the main Eliza R. Snow article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be moved, but I don't have a lot of knowledge about the Eliza when it comes to the other terms. I know that she was respected for being a great poet for the LDS. As I think about it, it seems like I remember reading something about her being viewed as visionary, but that has been years ago. Some work will need to be done to frame that appelations in their proper context. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The Snow "title" of "prophetess", as well as "presidentess" and "poetess", has long been taught in LDS gatherings (and still is ).  I’m sure there is a source for the title out there somewhere – I think I was taught years ago that JSmith (or Brigham Young) once called her a prophetess in a semi-public gathering.   However the 20th/21st Century LDS official perspective on "prophecy" is very different from the 19th.  Snow, and other women leaders in the Relief Society and general church, administered to one another and their children by laying on of hands, spoke in tongues, spoke publically and offered teachings as prophecy and took other spiritual actions.  All of these actions were based on the biblical concept of gifts of the spirit, not on holding the "Priesthood", leading the church or conducting priesthood rites.  WBardwin (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
The claim in the lead that it is a doctrine adhered to by Mormon fundamentalists is unsourced and seems highly unlikely outside of a few tiny minority exceptions. Additionally, we should not be categorizing articles based on isolated claims, but rather the unifying themes of the topic. Vassyana (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Although I am finding it hard to source (these fundamentalist groups don't have a large presence online), I would find it very surprising if they did not teach this doctrine. Along with polygamy, Adam-God, Blood Atonement, and other obscure and controversial doctrines, this is just the sort of thing that fundamentalists would want to keep - the whole point of fundamentalism is to not toss out the controversial doctrines that the mainstream LDS church has.  That said, I am no expert on Mormon fundamentalism, so I can't be sure - and again, with the lack of available references online, there is a dearth of information.  Is there anyone who is a member of one of these churches that can give some perspective? --Descartes1979 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Though I'm not a member of one of these groups, I have studied many of them in depth. I can confirm that all the fundamentalist groups I have studied, which include the FLDS Church and AUB, do believe in and teach Mother in Heaven, or, to be more precise, Mothers in Heaven, since God the Father is polygamist. I agree that to find a source for this will be tricky, I suspect, but I'll look and see if I can find anything in off-line sources I have. I'm not sure if calling this claim "dubious" is very accurate; it's probably more accurate to say it's dubious that these groups don't believe or teach it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed section for discussion
The section below appear to me to be an assertion of editorial opinion and so actually may be an original research concept. Although the source to BYoung is probably accurate, has anyone read the Wilcox book? I would discount the blog review. I know of no other LDS oriented publication which introduces and discusses a LDS doctrinal problem with a Queen Wife. Opinions. WBardwin (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Problematic aspect of Heavenly Mother theology: One problematic aspect of the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, about which there has been much speculation, is the question of whether there are many Mothers in Heaven, all plurally married to the Father in Heaven (as taught by Brigham Young). Then would arise the question of which one of these Heavenly Mothers is the Heavenly Father’s Queen Wife?

 * I am sorry, but I have not read the book. Nor have I ever heard anyone pose this issue as "a problem". It certainly may be an issue for an individual, but it has hardly achieved the level of a group discussion among LDS. The concept of plural wives in heaven has been around since Joseph Smith. In such a teaching there was never a teach as "the" queen, but rather all are kings and queens. Exaltation is an more about being one with Jesus Christ and God the Father than about one's marital relationship. The above does sound like an individual's opinion. The question for me is the author an expert? -- Storm  Rider  12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Heavenly Mother (Mormonism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701094251/http://www.rcjc.org:80/ to http://www.rcjc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization
The word "heavenly" had been capitalized in some places, but not others, so I capitalized all instances for consistency. Good Ol'factory reverted this as unwarranted, so I went ahead and changed the remaining capitalizations (other than direct quotes) to lowercase. (Thanks for retaining my other changes, though!) As soon as I did this, however, Bahooka reverted my second change, because in some cases "Heavenly Mother" is apparently used as a proper noun. Frankly, if I hadn't been chasing the hobgoblin of consistency, this is a distinction I would have made to begin with: "...praying to the heavenly Mother" & "worshiping a heavenly Mother" look all right to me, but I agree "...prayer to Heavenly Mother" should be capitalized. Given the apparent disagreement between editors, though, I would prefer to have a consensus before changing the article to this standard.

Just for reference, of the ten cited sources that I can confirm use the phrase "Heavenly Mother," most of them either capitalize "Heavenly" when used in a proper noun, or capitalize all uses, as follows:

 * "Pre-Mortal Existence", Mormonism, BBC, 2009-10-02: capitalized after "a" or "the"
 * "The Role of Women in the Church". Restoration Church of Jesus Christ: capitalized after "our"
 * "Lesson 9: Chastity and Modesty", The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A (2000): not capitalized (but does capitalize "Heavenly Father")
 * Spencer W. Kimball, "The True Way of Life and Salvation", Ensign, May 1978, p. 4: capitalized after "our"
 * Wilcox, Linda P. (1987), "The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven", Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 64–77: capitalized after "a," "the," and as proper noun
 * Pratt, Orson (October 1853), "Celestial Marriage", The Seer, 1 (10), p. 159: not capitalized (after "a" and "His")
 * Paulsen, David L.; Pulido, Martin (2011), "'A Mother There': A Survey of Historical Teachings About Mother in Heaven", BYU Studies, 50 (1): 70–97: capitalized after "a," "the," and as proper noun
 * "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Brigham Young University" (PDF). American Association of University Professors. September–October 1997: capitalized as proper noun (in quote from Prof. Houston)
 * Tad Walch. "LDS Church releases new essays about women and the priesthood and Heavenly Mother". Deseret News: capitalized as proper noun
 * Margaret Merrill Toscano, "Is There a Place For Heavenly Mother In Mormon Theology"; Sunstone; July 2004: capitalized after "a," "the," and as proper noun

I grant that this may or may not reflect the majority of all available sources, but it is what the article is currently based on. Thoughts? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The capitalization of "heavenly" may depend on the context. The LDS Church treats the term Heavenly Mother as a proper noun (see here), but that may depend on sentence structure and discussion of a concept rather than a specific Mother in Heaven. While I reverted the initial change, if the consensus is to use a lower case "h", that's fine with me. Bahooka (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * In its non-canonical texts, the LDS Church itself tends to capitalize all sorts of words that wouldn't normally be capitalized (including words that are not capitalized in its canonical texts), so I'm not sure the church's usage is a good standard to follow in and of itself. However, it looks like most other sources listed above do so as well. Personally, I thought "heavenly" was just an adjective describing location or nature rather than part of any proper name, as with "heavenly Father" in KJV, and that the proper name would be "Mother", if anything. But if we purely follow the sources, I think capitalization would win out in most cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If "Heavenly" is part of the title, I would interpret this sentence from MOS:CAPS as calling for caps: "Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized." Jonathunder (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Heavenly Mother (Mormonism). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aaup.org/Com-a/Institutions/archives/1997/Brigham.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/OriginOfMan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318221330/http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=12982&x=55&y=2 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=12982&x=55&y=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107113401/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6362 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6362
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624223117/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8669 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8669

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heavenly Mother (Mormonism)


text:
Talk:Variety (botany)

Brown Caiman
The brown caiman is in excellent zoological fashion a subspecies. as such it is a bad example for explaining the term variety. Furthermore a subspecies has three parts to its name hence it is a trinominal.

 * Excellent. Thank you! Peak 16:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Confused
From the article:

 * A variety is a recognised division of a species in botany, next below the rank of subspecies; in zoology, species are only divided into subspecies and never into varieties.

Why is this? Then it goes on to say:

 * A domesticated variety of a plant is called a cultivar, while a domesticated variety of an animal is called a breed.

This contradicts the earlier sentence. Are there animal varieties or not? There certainly are breeds, and breeds can hardly be considered subspecies--poodles and Rottweilers are both Canis familiaris if I recall correctly, and can certainly produce Canis familiaris mixed-breed offspring, although they might need mechanical assistance to do so. 130.91.65.76 18:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge
As I understand it (just based on these articles, not on any additional reading), the question is whether to merge Variety (botany) (about scientific nomenclature) and Variety (plant) (about a legal term). Variety (biology) is already a redirect to the botany one. I could see arguments for describing both on the same page (mainly, that it might make it easier to contrast the two meanings), but on the whole I would think separate articles are more graceful. In particular, it lets aother articles link to one or the other, depending on which meaning they intend. Kingdon 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed (also based on no additional knowledge), but maybe Variety (plant) should be renamed to Variety (horticulture). —JerryFriedman 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or maybe Variety (plant) should be combined with Plant breeders' rights and/or International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Anyway, given that the merge tags for Variety (botany) and Variety (plant) had been there for three months, and this was all the discussion we got on the merge, it seems best to remove the tags (which I have gone ahead and done). What little input we have gotten seems to be against that particular merge. Kingdon 21:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope For Improvement
I was rather hoping this page would explain how a variety is produced. Saying it is a rank below that of species is fine as far as it goes, but what about an explanation of how different the child has to be before it can be termed a variety. If I take two varieties of apple and pollinate one with the other and grow seedlings from the fruit produced, is this a variety by definition or is there some metric that determines it is not unless it is sufficiently optically distinct from either of its parents?  Cottonshirt  τ   07:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I propose to merge Plant variety here, because it seems to me that the primary meaning of the term has to do with the variety of plants; even though this may be a technical term in botany, the nuances of it would best be explained in this article. bd2412 T 04:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Plant variety is currently a disambiguation page. Although I would generally like to see the scholarly use of any term predominate, I have to disagree that in this case it is the prevailing usage. Misuse of the term to mean cultivar (or occasionally forma) is, I think, much more common, and Plant variety (law) is a component of intellectual-property law that occasionally attracts considerable journalistic interest (it isn't well covered here yet). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but it is not as though there are several distinct and unrelated concepts that are ambiguous to one another (like the planet Mercury, the element Mercury, and the god Mercury). Instead what we have here is a rather murky divide between unclear delineations of ways that types of plants are divided up. There is, for example, no use of the term "plant variety" to delineate different kinds of power plants or different kinds of skateboard foot-planting moves. In fact, the "Other nomenclature uses" already in this article covers all the topics listed on the disambiguation page. Why have that duplication? bd2412  T 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the corrections that User:Squids and Chips has just made have clarified the delineations? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but those delineations are making Plant variety look more like an article on terminology, and less like a disambiguation page. bd2412  T 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Move
(See also WT:PLANTS.) The page was recently moved to "Botanical variety" without discussion on the grounds of natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). I don't accept that there is anything "natural" about "botanical variety" as a title for an article about the taxonomic rank of varietas/variety as used in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). "Botanical variety" to me naturally means the variety of plants, or else is ambiguous between the ICN rank of "varietas" and the ICNCP rank of "cultivar". So I've moved the article back, pending discussion and consensus here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. If someone uses the expression "botanical variety" to mean a particular category, rather than to mean the broad spectrum of plant life, then they are possibly trying to state that they don't mean the definition in law (which has little to do with botany). Plant variety is another option that fully disambiguates, but perhaps it is not as good as the original link that you have now restored. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Variety (botany)


text:
Guanosine triphosphate

Guanosine-5'-triphosphate (GTP) is a purine nucleoside triphosphate. It is one of the building blocks needed for the synthesis of RNA during the transcription process. Its structure is similar to that of the guanosine nucleoside, the only difference being that nucleotides like GTP have phosphates on their ribose sugar. GTP has the guanine nucleobase attached to the 1' carbon of the ribose and it has the triphosphate moiety attached to ribose's 5' carbon.

It also has the role of a source of energy or an activator of substrates in metabolic reactions, like that of ATP, but more specific. It is used as a source of energy for protein synthesis and gluconeogenesis.

GTP is essential to signal transduction, in particular with G-proteins, in second-messenger mechanisms where it is converted to guanosine diphosphate (GDP) through the action of GTPases.

Energy transfer
GTP is involved in energy transfer within the cell. For instance, a GTP molecule is generated by one of the enzymes in the citric acid cycle. This is tantamount to the generation of one molecule of ATP, since GTP is readily converted to ATP with nucleoside-diphosphate kinase (NDK).

Genetic translation
During the elongation stage of translation, GTP is used as an energy source for the binding of a new amino-bound tRNA to the A site of the ribosome. GTP is also used as an energy source for the translocation of the ribosome towards the 3' end of the mRNA.

Microtubule dynamic instability
During microtubule polymerization, each heterodimer formed by an alpha and a beta tubulin molecule carries two GTP molecules, and the GTP is hydrolyzed to GDP when the tubulin dimers are added to the plus end of the growing microtubule. Such GTP hydrolysis is not mandatory for microtubule formation, but it appears that only GDP-bound tubulin molecules are able to depolymerize. Thus, a GTP-bound tubulin serves as a cap at the tip of microtubule to protect from depolymerization; and, once the GTP is hydrolyzed, the microtubule begins to depolymerize and shrink rapidly.

Mitochondrial function
The translocation of proteins into the mitochondrial matrix involves the interactions of both GTP and ATP. The importing of these proteins plays an important role in several pathways regulated within the mitochondria organelle, such as converting oxaloacetate to phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) in gluconeogenesis.

Precursor for synthesis of riboflavin
GTP, in combination with ribulose 5-phosphate, are the precursor compounds for the synthesis of riboflavin (vitamin B2).

Biosynthesis
In the cell, GTP is synthesised through many processes including:
 * as a byproduct of the Succinyl-CoA to Succinate conversion catalysed by the Succinyl-CoA synthetase enzyme as part of the Krebs cycle;
 * through exchanges of phosphate groups from ATP molecules by the Nucleoside-diphosphate kinase, an enzyme tasked with maintaining an equilibrium between the concentrations of different nucleoside triphosphates.

title: Guanosine triphosphate


text:
Talk:American Indian Wars

June 2,1924 is the exact end date of the Indian wars.
On June 2, 1924 American congress passed the citizen act that recognized Native Americans as citizens of the United States. Before that date a native American was not a citizen ore even recognized as a human being. In many areas if an Indian was killed the person who murdered the Indian would get off Scott free and never be charged. All they would have to do is claim the Indian was a savage on the warpath and had tried to kill him. If charged he would never be convicted as no Indian could sit on a jury because they were not recognized as citizens or humans just savages. Once the June 2,1924 the mass murder by the US army and citizens stopped as Native Americans were now human and citizens. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Ever hear of NPOV? Intothatdarkness 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thousands of Amerindians and tribes had citizenship before 1924. What the Act did was give Citizenship to all Tribes.
 * This was because Tribal Citizenship was generally considered mutually exclusive with US Citizenship.
 * You are also saying that juries won't convict people of the same race, which is factually untrue. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ever heard of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And by making this change the IP seems to be saying that the Indian wars were continuous rather than intermittent. Meters (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Indian wars ended on June 2,1924 when the American Indian was recognized as a citizen and human. ￼ No longer a savage non-human. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pushing your POV isn't acceptable here. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The truth is the truth it's not a POV if it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I suggest you acquaint yourself with what Wikipedia's about, specifically this essay. This one may prove helpful as well. You are pushing your POV without any kind of adequate sourcing. Intothatdarkness 01:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what truth is. Truth is never POV it is just truth. Let me explain it to like a 3-year-old child. The color yellow is yellow that is a truth. IF you go to a communist state like California and say yellow is not yellow it is Blue. Then that is a POV only recognized in Communist California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Competency is required. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even one such as you should be able to tell the difference that yellow is not blue. A three-year-old can identify the difference. ￼ 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NPA is also a thing. I'll just leave you to talk to yourself now. Intothatdarkness 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is still going on. There's no consensus here that we should include an exact day (June 2, 1924) as the end date, and this has been removed 4 times (by multiple editors) in the last week. Meters (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 * And they're at it again. As I've said multiple times, I am aware of NO secondary RS that uses 1924 as a date for anything. And the IPs are unable to provide anything, so they either ignore talk or resort to personal attacks as seen on this page. The standard date range, used by all RS, is 1890. Intothatdarkness 15:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to all that I have submitted an edit warring report regarding this. Not sure how much good it will do with IP hopping, but thought it was procedurally correct. Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about both starting and closing dates
This article currently dates the American Indian Wars as running from 1609 to June 2, 1924. Neither one seems right to me.

The claimed geographic extent here is North America, but that includes Central America and the Caribbean — in which case, it seems strange to start with 1609 and skip over the many wars in Mexico and Central America, much less Juan de Oñate in New Mexico. It seems there'd even be reasonable justification for 1492 as a start date here.

The ending date seems even more questionable. June 2, 1924 was the date the Indian Citizenship Act was enacted — which could be a perfectly reasonable date to mark the integration of Native Americans into the United States polity, but makes no sense as the end date of a war (or series of wars). I'm not expert enough to confidently propose an alternative, but the Battle of Bear Valley in 1918 seems to have far more justification (as the last actual time the United States Army and Native Americans engaged in combat). Thoughts? Flaggingwill (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree. This article is Anglo-centric.  I've been thinking of adding material about the Spanish wars in Florida (beginning about 1565) and New Mexico (beginning about 1598) although you can go back further to battles of Francisco Coronado and Hernando DeSoto in the 1540s -- but those might be characterized as raids rather than wars. The last Indian War of which I'm aware was the Posey War in Utah in 1923, which was not much of a war -- but if nobody has a better date, maybe that should be the end date.

 * Maybe also the article is mistitled and the correct title should be "North American Indian Wars." That would solve your problem of the lack of coverage of Central American and Caribbean wars. Smallchief (talk)

 * We could rename the article "Anglo-American Indian Wars", although I think we would have trouble finding reliable sources that use that term. AFAIK, there isn't much to add about conflicts between the Spanish and indigenous peoples in what is now the Southeastern U.S. There was Ponce de Leon's attempt to plant a colony in southwestern Florida in 1521, when the local people, presumably the Calusa, drove off the Spanish and motally wounded Ponce de Leon. Both the Narvaez and the de Soto expeditions engaged in skirmishes and battles with indigenous groups, with the Narvaez expedition, in particular, not faring well, but I agree that it is hard to describe those battles as part of a war. In the 1660s, first the French and then the Spanish took sides with various chiefdoms along the coast from southern South Carolina to northeastern Florida, but that was providing assistance in existing conflicts betweeen indigenous chiefdoms. During the mission period in Spanish Florida, the Spanish did not fight indigenous groups very much. There were the Guale and Timucua rebellions, in which a few non-indigenous people were killed (five Spanish missionaries in the Guale Rebellion and two Spaniards, a Mexican, and two African slaves in the Timucua Rebellion). In both cases, the Spanish sent retaliatory expeditions, the indigenous groups surrendered without a fight, and the Spanish executed a few leaders. I just learned a few days ago of a Spanish/Apalachee raid that captured a Chisca fortress in the Florida panhandle in 1677, in retaliation for Chiscas killing a few Apalachee Christians. The big conflict is the series of raids against Spanish missions by groups backed and encouraged by the English in South Carolina, especially during Queen Anne's War. Aside from the Guale Rebellion and the Apalachee Massacre, I am not aware of stand-alone articles about conflicts in Spanish Florida. Part of that is because the information is scattered in various sources, and because there often isn't much information readily available. We also do not have an article about the Westo War, which has a single paragraph in Westo. - Donald Albury 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * THere's also no coverage of various indigenous conflicts which occurred prior to the arrival of Europeans. Wikipedia writ large has issues with covering this period (the so-called Comanche Campaign which only exists as an Army lineage definition is one example, with the Army on the Frontier being another), so I'm not surprised this article carries on that trend. The 1924 date seems to be tied more to a POV-pushing IP than anything else, and frankly I'd prefer something earlier (the 1918 date if you want to consider conflict involving Government troops, although I'm not opposed to 1923 if we want to broaden the definition). Intothatdarkness 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The June 2,1924 end date is exactly correct. Prior to that date the American Indian was treated worse than a dog. They had no rights whatsoever and could be shot down like a mad dog by anyone who claimed the Indian was on the warpath. The Indian citizenship act changed all that. ￼ The Indian was identified as a human from that point on and a citizen of the United States. It is not a POV its the truth. ￼ After June 2,1924 the killings stopped because now killing an Indian was murder and not just putting a savage down. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the importance of that date, but it doesn't mark the end of a war or series of wars. African Americans faced intense legal discrimination for a century after 1865, but I wouldn't date the end of the Civil War to the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965. Flaggingwill (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore the POV-pushing IP. Intothatdarkness 00:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparing Jim Crow to the mass murder of Indians is not logical. From 1865 on black people were recognized as human and were not considered savages. Black people were considered second class citizens under Jim Crow in the south until the Civil rights act of 1965. In the north they were treated much better. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to the confusion is the separate List of American Indian Wars, which includes conflicts from 1540 to 1923, at least three of them in modern-day Mexico. (Maybe a separate issue, but there's also some definitional work here around what counts as a "war." We have 20th-century "wars" here with a single casualty, but nothing involving Columbus, Oñate, or other Conquistadors.)
 * There are also a Wars involving indigenous peoples of South America and a List of indigenous rebellions in Mexico and Central America, though they're relatively sparse. Maybe this needs to be specifically focused on what became the U.S. and Canada to define the scope? Flaggingwill (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say focusing it as perhaps North American Indian Wars would be a start, although again it ignores pre-European conflicts. The conflicts in Mexico, Central, and South America are in my view significant enough (or should be) that they need their own individual articles. There are enough issues in the treatment of the North American conflicts to work on as it is. Intothatdarkness 00:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The indian wars in Mexico pretty much died out after the death of Pancho Villa on July 20,1923. His support for their attacks on the Mexican government was key. One of the main reasons Pancho Villa was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Once the United States recognized Native Americans as human and citizens of the United States on June 2, 1924. The government in Mexico soon followed suit in recognizing Indians as humans and not out of control savages. Without Pancho Villas support of money for guns, Ammo and supplies by June of 1924 the Indians in Mexico had nothing left to fight with so pretty much stopped fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.15.179 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Do you know of any reliable sources that say as much? Donald Albury 17:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There aren't any I'm aware of, yet this date remains in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And the 1924 date remains in the infobox, with IPs occasionally adding a specific date. I have yet to see any RS that confirm the 1924 date as being generally accepted as the end of the Indian Wars writ large. The handful of sources all tie back to Arizona and appear far more localized. The vast majority of broader historiography uses 1891 or thereabouts, and since we seem to have a fetish for naming conflicts after the Army's official campaign titles (Which in some cases have little connection to historical reality) this also makes sense. There are no official campaigns listed after Wounded Knee, unless you want to include Pancho Villa. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that the subject of this article is very poorly defined, and the military conflict infobox is not a good fit for it. Some editors seem to have regarded this article as covering every incident in North America since 1492 involving American Indians and Europeans, in which someone was killed. A more U.S.-centric view would be that expressed in a Library of Congress study guide, The term Indian Wars reflects the sense that the multitude of individual battles and campaigns against specific native groups formed a broader, centuries-long struggle for American expansionism on the one hand, and indigenous resistance on the other.LOC: Indian Wars And entirely U.S.-centric is the use of the term "Indian Wars" in this piece from the Hoover Institution, which confines the term to conflicts between the U.S. government and Native Americans.
 * One problem I see with using the infobox is that some editors have shoehorned in every European power that ever had a colony in North American as a belligerent. On the other hand, The list of Native American belligerents is very short, but a complete listing would include a great many tribes, bands, chiefdoms and towns. I think an equivalent use would be an article that used the military conflict infobox to try to cover every war fought by Rome (republic and empire).
 * As for the starting date, if we do include Spain and its colonies as belligerents, then the Narváez expedition, starting in 1528; the de Soto expedition, starting in 1539; and the Coronado expedition, starting in 1540, fought battles with Native Americans in what is now the United States, with large losses of life on both sides. So, are those part of the American Indian Wars? Donald Albury 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. I'd rather see it better-defined. But I have yet to see any RS that uses the end date of 1924 in North America aside from a handful of regional (as in Arizona-specific) pieces. And of course there's also the question of what to call some of these conflicts even if you stick with just the United States (there is no such thing as the Comanche Campaign, for example, aside from an Army lineage designation covering a series of conflicts that have their own historical names).
 * In an ideal world I could see having a number of individual articles (Colonial-era conflicts, the United States, Mexico, Inter-tribal conflicts, and so on) instead of this odd combination. That would make far more sense and allow for the actual distinctions seen during these conflicts. Intothatdarkness 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And it looks like the IPs warring about the exact date are back in action. I'll just repeat: I don't recall seeing any major RS that uses 1924 as the end of the "Indian Wars," let alone an exact day. The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars (a 3-volume set published in 2011 by ABC-CLIO) sets the dates as 1607-1890, which strikes me as reasonable if you want to include colonial conflicts. Using 1924 as the end date, unless it can be supported by significant RS, strikes me as OR or SYNTH. Intothatdarkness 21:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The United States government recognizes it as the end of the Indian wars, and they stopped considering Indians as out of control non-human savages. Recognized as human citizens of the United States on June 2, 1924. That is when the Indians wars ended. 2600:1015:A025:9697:54D:DE07:B29C:E7D1 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide some RS to prove your contention. It doesn't appear to be supported by anything I've seen. The standard "end date" for the Indian Wars is 1890. Your assertion is not a reliable source. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the documents of exactly what was signed for yourself on June 2,1924 i have. ￼ I have no time to baby feed you information. ￼ 2600:1015:A025:9697:7C0D:E9E0:415B:F220 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel the need to "baby feed information," IP, perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. I suspect you'll only find frustration.  All the best.  Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were a research history scientist ￼ you would be worth 1 second of my time. 2600:1015:A011:CA8A:3BD4:BD9C:63CE:AAF3 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And removed again and IP warned. Meters (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of changing the nested note by the dates as well. To me it feels a bit misleading. Intothatdarkness 20:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Meters (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. But there's no guarantee our persistent IPs will pay any attention. Intothatdarkness 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Counting of casualties
The article as is cites a single source for about 1,000 casualties for the United States. The source only includes conflicts from 1817 to 1898, while the scope of the article covers conflicts from the 17th century to early 20th century.

I’m sure there are many casualty lists for the individual conflicts on Wikipedia itself, so perhaps there should be an effort to reach a realistic total that encompasses the entire scope of the article.

This oversight makes the casualties for settler nations appear dubiously low while not listing casualties for any indigenous nations. For now I have merely denoted the range of time available in the source for the U.S.A.’s casualties. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * See Second Seminole War for some figures on the longest and most costly of the "Indian Wars" fought by the United States. Sources for deaths vary, and may or may not count deaths from diseases together with killed-in-action. In general, cumulative numbers were not kept for either "Seminoles" or white civilians killed in that war. Trying to piece together a death count from many sources of varying quantity sounds like original research, which we cannot use in articles. Donald Albury 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

If the sources vary far too much and there is no source that encompasses the casualties of the entire American Indian Wars, then perhaps that casualty count should not be included whatsoever until there is a verifiable source which offers numbers for the entirety of the conflicts. Otherwise it would seem more appropriate to cover them on an individual scale on their respective articles. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it can be very hard to distill something that is very vague and poorly, if at all, sourced, into a "fact" that fits in a slot in an infobox. Most of what we know about the "Indian Wars" comes to us in accounts by Europeans and Euro-Americans. As has been said elsewhere, history is written by the victors. Even numbers for regular US Army soldiers killed can be problematic, and numbers for White irregulars and for Indigenous people even more so, especially as we go back in history. If we find a reliable source that states an estimate of numbers killed, we can use it, but I suspect we will often find that even reliable sources differ on such estimates. Donald Albury 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "then perhaps that casualty count should not be included whatsoever until there is a verifiable source which offers numbers for the entirety of the conflicts. Otherwise it would seem more appropriate to cover them on an individual scale on their respective articles."
 * I don't think removing verifiable infomation is right, there is rarely ever going to be a perfect accounting of all casualities. And the stats we have so far, gives readers a fair estimate of the scale of the wars. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And now I found an article in The Annals of Applied Statistics, which looks like it is a reliable source, that estimates the number of casualties in what it calls the "American Indian War", from 1778 to around 1890, at 12,000 for U.S. forces and 60,000 for Native Americans. I think this is worth including in the article, but would welcome discussion of where and how to incorporate it. - Donald Albury 20:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 * The only quibble I'd have (and since I can't see the article I can't confirm if the author included this or not) is the possible lack of inclusion of civilian casualties (both White and Hispanic when you look at the border regions). The language "forces" as opposed to "Native Americans" suggests he didn't. And the number of soldiers killed can actually be estimated with some precision (at least during the post-Civil War period) for part of the Army based on published sources. If Gillespie's information is included, I'd suggest noting it as a statistical estimate and not a hard number. Intothatdarkness 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to download the article with no problem. It presents an argument that the number of deaths in battles in the American Indian Wars follow a power law, and then develops an estimate of combatant deaths using Bayesian statistics. (Note: It has been 50 years since I studied statistics in grad school, and I don't remember learning about Bayesian statistics, so I cannot vouch for the efficacy of the use of that method in this study.) From what I have seen reliable sources for deaths are fairly robust (but not perfect) for US military forces, and poor for Indian combatants and non-combatants, both white and Indian. The author notes that rounding errors are probably higher for reported Indian deaths than for US Forces, which created more uncertainty in the estimate of the number of Indian deaths. Donald Albury 23:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I agree it could be added somewhere provided the limitations were noted. Presenting it as a factual number would be in my view problematic. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-adding of flag icons
has restored many of the flag icons I removed after the discussion in the section "Flag icons in the infobox" above. I feel that those flagicons are excessive, and violate the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. I have invited Korg82Champ74 to discuss this here. Donald Albury 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amerindian
Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Not sure changing to a portmanteau of American Indian = "Amerindian"  is less offense then just Indian. Could see an argument to change to "Indigenous" Moxy - 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As a card-carrying member of an Indian tribe, I don't find the word "Indian" to be offensive. If there is a need to distinguish between the people of India and the people of the Americas when Columbus arrived, the words "American Indian" can be used. "Amerindian" may not be a recognizable word to many. Smallchief (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the wide usage of the term "Indian", I feel like the term should be primarily used in historical contexts, such as official names of organizations (Bureau of Indian Affairs) and events (American Indian Wars) as well as quotes. Plus, "Indian" is also considered by many to be a misnomer. Even if the word "Amerindian" isn't widely used, it still refers to the same people. And though it is uncommon, some people can conflate indigenous peoples with American immigrants living in India in the context of the term "American Indian". Guyana is also a country that widely uses "Amerindian". For a comparable example, you could use the word "aborigine" in reference to the indigenous peoples of Australia, especially in historical context, even though it is considered derogatory nowadays and many people outside Australia are unaware of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Adopting euphemisms in place of terms that may have acquired negative connotations for some people is rarely effective for very long. Leaving aside several examples I am sure all of us can think of, I will mention an obscure example. I worked for 23 years in a program that provided services to "economically disadvantaged" people. In that time period, we went from calling the people who received our services "clients" to "participants" to "customers", because negative connotations began to accrete to each term. I do not use a term for any group when I know that a significant part of that group finds the term offensive. I am less concerned about people who are not part of said group being offended by the term. Ideally, we should refer to every group by a term or terms that members of that group have said they prefer. As it happens, however, groups are rarely monolithic about such things. Donald Albury 18:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, considering that you're just referring to the status of disadvantaged people in general, while I'm referring to an entire racial group. Also, several articles about indigenous peoples in certain countries like Colombia and Venezuela frequently use the term "Amerindian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Amerindian usually has a significant regional/geographic connotation. Although this does remind me of the failed attempt to impose the term "First Nations" on tribal groups in the United States. Intothatdarkness 00:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be clearer. 1. Switching to a new term for a group is often just papering over systemic bias against that group. 2. We should not be deciding what to call a group without considering what members of that group would prefer being called. Donald Albury 01:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are European-descended peoples who prefer to be called "Caucasians", and yet I fail to find any articles about these people featuring the word being commonly used. We also have an article about "Araucanian languages", even though the word "Araucania" is considered to carry colonial connotations among the Mapuche. There are also African-Americans in the United States who generally preferred to be called "black", and yet the article for that group is titled "African-Americans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealPrinceZuko (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to sign your posts. Also, the vast majority of literature regarding groups in the US uses either "Indian" or (more frequently these days) "Native American." Amerindian is rarely, if ever, used in this context. Your personal preference is, to use your own word, irrelevant. Intothatdarkness 12:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not these terms are commonly used. And it's not just a matter of preference. We also have an article literally titled African Pygmies, even though the term "pygmy" itself is considered derogatory by the people, and that article also refers to them as "Central African foragers". Overall, either replace the term "Indian" with "American Indian" or "indigenous peoples" aside from quotes and official names of organizations and events. DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Common use DOES matter because we need to harmonize when possible with RS. Your Amerindian idea doesn't do that, since it isn't used in RS to refer to this specific group of peoples. And your "otherstuff" example isn't persuasive in this case. Maybe you should work to change the title of that article. Intothatdarkness 16:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a right (as determined by the United Nations) for an ethnic group or race to be called what they want to be called. A survey established that 50 percent of Indians want to be called "Indians"; 37 percent want to be called "Native Americans"; and 13 percent something else. Moreover, the National Congress of American Indians calls Indians "Indians" and the most important media source about Indians is called "Indian Country Today." That's definitive. It is acceptable to use the word Indian to apply to the people who lived in the United States before the Europeans arrived.Smallchief (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They prefer to be called "American Indians", not just "Indians". And like I said, the official name of an event (American Indian Wars) doesn't affect the terminology of a group of people as long as it's used in historical context. And yes, my "otherstuff" examples is much more persuasive than you think it is. You also ignored my point about how the term "pygmy" in reference to a Central African ethnic group is considered derogatory and that African-Americans generally prefer to be called "Black Americans", so why don't you send a request for those articles to be renamed if you're such a strong advocate for preferred terminologies for ethnic groups? DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, much of what you're saying isn't as persuasive as you think it is. But I'll leave you to it. You seem to have missed Smallchief's point as well about both common name and preferred name. You'll notice the survey they mentioned has 50% preferring "Indian," while only 37% preferred "Native American." Intothatdarkness 18:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it not persuasive? Also, the only difference between "American Indian" and "Amerindian" is that the former is two-worded and the latter is one-worded, due to being a portmanteau. The fact that most of those people prefer to be called "(American) Indian" is no different from the fact that most African-Americans prefer to be called "Black Americans", and yet there is an article with the title "African-Americans", which is a double standard to the point you're trying to make in regards to American Indians and you're ignoring the terminology for African-Americans, despite my points being literally the same as yours in regards to indigenous terminology. And as I've stated before, article titled in reference to official names are exempt from being changed. DaRealPrinceZuko — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Try coming back when you've got some more experience here and learn to sign your posts. Intothatdarkness 19:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, how is "(American) Indian" any different from "Black American", which are both preferred terms by their respective groups? DaRealPrinceZuko 19:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of scholars and RS do not use the term "Amerindian" when discussing these peoples. You may prefer Amerindian, but the vast majority of RS do NOT use the term in this context. We follow RS, which tend to use either Native American or Indian depending on the source and the context. And since you seem to be new, RS means Reliable Sources. Intothatdarkness 20:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't care about what I prefer. Also, you didn't answer my question about the double standard applied to Black Americans, which is exactly the same circumstance to "(American Indian)" that you're conveniently ignoring. Also, you just provided statistics without providing any citations. By the way, stop tone policing me. DaRealPrinceZuko 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore the question of RS. There's nothing else to be done here. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide any RS yourself. You never provided any sources or references to the supposed UN statistic about ethnic terminology. It's a way to say "Look at this statistic that proves me right, yet which I curiously didn't cite in this discussion". Also, there are various articles about racial demographics of countries like Bolivia that officially use the term "Amerindian" (i.e. CountryReports and IndexMundi). DaRealPrinceZuko 20:55, August 28 2023 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the terms used in this case American Indian Wars and American Indian Wars Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DaRealPrinceZuko has at least once changed a quotation which read "Indian" to "Amerindian"
And as I don't want to add to a closed discussion, I will add this paragraph here from Indigenous peoples of the Americas

"The term Amerindian, a portmanteau of "American Indian", was coined in 1902 by the American Anthropological Association. It has been controversial ever since its creation. It was immediately rejected by some leading members of the Association, and, while adopted by many, it was never universally accepted. While never popular in Indigenous communities themselves, it remains a preferred term among some anthropologists, notably in some parts of Canada and the English-speaking Caribbean.   " If this sort of behaviour continues, a report to ANI may be required. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 * If they're changing quoted text to match their preferred word usage, I'd say it's a pretty clear case of NOTHERE. While Amerindian may be in more common usage in Central and South America, it certainly isn't in the United States...especially in scholarly work surrounding the Indian Wars. Intothatdarkness 13:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I did not notice the quotation. I was using CTRL+F. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @DaRealPrinceZuko you need to stop these mass changes. Doug Weller  talk 20:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these articles already had the term "Amerindian" used frequently that predated my editing. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but each article is self-contained; just because we do things one way in another article doesn't mean we must do the same here (though that can be an argument for doing so). The advice here is more that mass editing is just a bad idea in general.  Errors like the one you encountered here are bound to crop up eventually.  Better to go slow and account for context.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This article as currently written violates the MOS
This article should be with a link to a disambiguation page containing a listing of wars against Indigenous nations prosecuted by nation states other than the United States. Most people coming here for “Indian Wars” seek information about the series of greater than forty wars by the United States against Indigenous nations over a period of no more than 125 years. Moreover, the term largely refers to a specific period in United States history coming after the American Civll War and before the Progressive Era (viz. 1865-1890) coinciding with a period of rapid annexations of Indigenous territories from the High Plains to the Sierra Nevada range. (see also generally e.g. Indian Campaign Medal (1865-1891)). But, in its most general sense, the term has always meant the United States’ wars against Indigenous nations. The “What Links Here” page is almost entirely pages from United States history for events or persons occurring after 1775.

Wikipedia’s MOS states “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” For this title, the reliable sources refer to wars between the United States and Indigenous nations. The scope of this article is far too broad. The information about Spanish conquistadors is frankly irrelevant and draws the reader away from the common meaning of “Indian Wars,” especially considering the Spanish conquest of the Americas is the most well known name for that series of wars. The way this is written, with the needless inclusion of 500 years of various wars by multiple nations across multiple continents, is so broad such as to water down the actual history. Like an article trying to link to World War 1, but having to link to “European Wars,” an article spanning several hundred years beginning after the Peace of Westphalia and ending at the end of the Cold War. What is being referenced (WW1) is included in the article, sure, but the article isn’t actually about what is desired for the linked referenced to WW1.

I believe this article should be reorganized with the removal of all wars against Indigenous nations by Great Britain, France, Spain, Canada, Mexico removed or placed in new articles like “American Indian Wars (Canada)” or “American Indian Wars in Mexico.” Regardless, the way it is written now makes it one of the worst catch-all style articles on this site. It would be akin to the article “Americans” starting in 1492 talking about all the various White colonists in North America who called themselves “Americans,” or maybe even starting with the Land Bridge talking about how Indigenous people as Americans for one third of the article until 1775 when it transitions to the creation of the U.S., which the the term everyone comes here looking for (even though many people in Latin America use the term to refer to themselves). Indigiwiki (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Wait, so is this page about US-America, Canada, or anything in North America with Indians between the 17th to 19th century? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Based off how the terminology is used, this page should be nearly entirely on the US, as that would properly reflect how the term "American Indian Wars" is used/discussed in reliable sources.
 * However, I believe what Indigiwiki and myself (see my comments at Talk:American Indian Wars) is pointing out is that the scope of the term has been incorrectly expanded well beyond what its supposed to discerns.
 * For the record, I do support paring down this article to be more reflective of how the term is used in academic sources and spin off the non-US content (although with regards to the last suggestion, I'd avoid making splits that use the "American Indian Wars" name as that would not reflect the local/common term that the scholarship uses to categorizes these events for those regions). Leventio (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * + 1. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * +2. Donald Albury 12:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
Please see the infobox documentation first: Template:Infobox military conflict. You used the "partof" parameter incorrectly. Mellk (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:American Indian Wars