"indigenous" would imply that they evolved in North America. From what do we suggest they evolved from? I doubt Star Trek will ever venture down that path, but has Star Trek ever used the phase indigenous to describe the American Indian? – AT2Howell 12:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the word "indigenous" implies anything about evolution? The term "indigenous people" predates Darwin by centuries, and has been used in reference to Native Americans, Australian aboriginies, Africans, Pacific Islanders, etc. Can you point to a source that indicates that American Indians should not be refered to as indigenous people? --75.168.140.54 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia, it is a Star Trek Wiki. If it's not in a book or a film, ditch it. "Indigenous -- originating in..." means "from a place". Native means "born in a place". A Human living on Barolia is neither indigenous or native. A Barolian born on Barolia is both native and indigenous. A Human born on Barolia is not indigenous but is a Native Barolian. Apply this to the American Indian as you see fit. I say again, if it's not in trek, don't use it here. James T. Kirk was a Native American (he was born in Iowa). Chakotay is not a Native American (Native Trebusian?). He is a decendant of American Indians (we ever establish what tribe)? His ancestors didn't originate in America, as proven by both fossil record and mitochondrial DNA testing, thus his people were never indigenous peoples of North or South America. Get it? – AT2Howell 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's other information on this wiki other than what's stated in books/novels. I suspect a number of "minor" details about Earth are skipped over due to most readers' familiarity with the subject. There's an entire paragraph on the United States of America page about the Confederacy that's not sourced to a book or movie. If Native Americans aren't indigenous... where did they come from?

Ignoring that little nugget, this article likely requires a little tweaking. Most of the lists and the tone of the article imply that "Native Americans" means American Indian; however, the Aztecs are mentioned in passing. Technically they would count as native to America, just the Southern portions. --Captain Savar 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA says they came from Asia. Just FYI. The American Indian can be found from Alaska to Argentina. It's just this article's first paragraph I think needs adjustment. The rest of the article is fine. I'm going to tweek it, you tell me if it's good to go. – AT2Howell 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Memory Alpha uses American Indian. – AT2Howell 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the nessesary changes to the article. Just some off Trek background info, I am from New Mexico. My parents live 20 feet off of the Navajo rez. My cousins are half Navajo. In my hometown, about half of the population is Navajo, the other half is Mormon. Not being a Mormon, all my friends were Navajo. While attending college in Albuquerque, I attended a "summit panel" of sorts with representatives from most of the American Indian tribes represented. When asked weather they preffered Native American to Indigenous People the respose was very clear. The Indigenous term is disliked because it would imply that American Indians evolved from coyotes or something, not making them the same species as all the other Humans on the planet. The audience was then asked to raise their hands if they were born outside the Americas. Anyone who didn't raise their hands were Native Americans, just like the American Indians present. If you know a man's tribe, that is prefered. If not, American Indian works fine. "Lets all just be happy Columbus didn't think he was in Turkey." – AT2Howell 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Half your paragraph almost seems to indicate you'd prefer to move this article to American Indian; however, the Aztec portion would have to be spun off...

Changing it to American Indian works for me. Aztec should have their own page as well. Navajo and a couple of ther tribes already have one. – AT2Howell 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure what the people of New Mexico think is fascinating, but they seem to be giving rather too much value to the word indigenous, going back as far as the evolution of humans is clearly not what it means in this context. If you're going with that kind of over the top definition then no Human is indigenous to any part of the world outside of Africa!

This article refers to, and makes quite clear in the opening paragraph, the human cultures originally native (ie. indigenous) to the Americas and their descendents (wherever they may have been born themselves). --8of5 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So we should rename the article American Indians and everyone goes home happy. Works for me, the Indigenous Terran Native American. – AT2Howell 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing how that makes everyone happy... We should name and describe the article by whatever Star Trek sources give us. So if you can collate a list of sources that shows Trek used American Indian more than Native American a move would be acceptable.

Come on dude, how can you have a Native American planet? Is there a Native African, Native European, and Native Australian planet to go with it? Jimbob. That's a Native American name. Billyjoe. Yep, that's Native American, too. Hank. Not too sure about that one. Is there any Hanks in England? Shriners. They're a Native American group, or a tribe on might say. – AT2Howell 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TOS novel: Mission to Horatius uses "Indian". Logic dictates that Chakotay is a native Trebusian, so don't even try to use that one. – AT2Howell 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because sir the term "Native American" is not being used her as individiual words native and american, but as the name of a racial/cultural group, it doesn't matter what planet they're from, they are still Native American! The term is interchangable with American Indian. By your same logic Chakotay couldn't be an American Indian either, as he can hardly be American if he's from Trebus!

Mission to Horatius is a single source, there are many more references to Native American/American Indians. --8of5 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

American Indian is to Jewish what Israeli is to American. Ignoring that Jewish refers to both theology and a racial type, lets move on with the analogy. A Native American can be of Jewish decent and still not be Israeli. Apply this example to Chakotay. He is definately not a Native American, because this would require him to be born in America. He is of the American Indian racial type. See how this works? You're a Brit, so how can I explain this? You have Pakis, right? If a Paki is born in England, is he a Native Paki or is he a Paki who is native to Britain? Can somebody help me out here? I don't know how to make this any simpler. – AT2Howell 22:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A Pakistani person born in England would be a British citizen, but still ethnically Pakistani. But you're continuing to miss the point, the terms "Native American" and "American Indian" do refer to the cultural groups, the entomology and value of the original words in the terms are irrelevant now, that is what they mean. --8of5 15:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very much more a Wikipedia debate -- see also Native American name controversy article at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. -- where they identify that Native American is an accepted term, despite the fact that it could be taken another way which would make it a misnomer. Their main article is a disambiguation (Native Americans article at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.) which does in fact agree with our usage -- and the more specific overview (Indigenous peoples of the Americas article at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.) uses the term "indigenous" but recognizes the alternate name of "natives".

Since our usage is generally in line with theirs, I have to ask -- does this debate have anything to do with Star Trek? -- Captain MKB 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really no. I tired to steer AT2's apparent passion on the subject towards finding info from Star Trek per which name our article should take, but he seems far more interesting in being stubborn! (And thank you for stepping in) --8of5 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a case of a Native American having a semantics debate with a Native Brit. Has trek ever referenced a "Native American planet"? If so, please tell me where. As I said before, I look forward to articles on Native Australian, Native African, and Native European planets, names, etc. Trek is, if nothing else, quite equal. – (moved comment) -- AT2Howell 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to have a conversation here -- please put your comments at the bottom AT2Howell -- it's kind of annoying to try and figure out who was talking first if you skip up to another section with your comments.

No need to explain what you just did -- I understand the nature of your debate -- and as I said above, I don't think it has anything to do with the article, which means that it is not really a conversation we need to have on a Memory Beta talk page. (since our talk pages are reserved for discussing changes to articles).

As I noted above, both "indigenous peoples" and "native Americans" are used in the vernacular, in an accepted forum such as Wikipedia. Since we have a much more narrow scope, their naming convention for this real life topic is sufficient to our purposes here at Memory Beta, as used by myself, a native Brit, and many many other registered users who accept and have edited this article and its naming convention in its current form.

No further discussion is required here unless there is another registered user who wishes to make a change. -- Captain MKB 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)