Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:07, 20 March 2014

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

Indigenous peoples of North America NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Past discussions Archive 1 (Feb 2006-Mar 2006) Archive 2 (Apr 2006-Oct 2006) Archive 3 (Sep 2006-Feb 2007) Archive 4 (May 2007-Jul 2007) Archive 5 (Jun 2007-Dec 2007) Archive 6 (Jan 2008-Aug 2008) Archive 7 (Aug 2008-Feb 2009) Archive 8 (Feb 2009-Jul 2009) Archive 9 (Jul 2009–)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Progress report on assessment

Hunbatz Men

Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can always take this nonsense to the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Can always find people there willing to debunk anything. Have to be careful about drawing their attention (organic food articles take major hits from that crowd) but it's always an option. Montanabw 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Did that thanks. Since I started to mention this we have an editor and their IP promoting Men and busy editing anything to do with the Maya. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Men? As in the broad topic, or something more specific? As for the Maya, sigh, fringe bait at all times, but especially since "teh" 2012 stuff... (deep, heavy, martyred sigh...) Montanabw 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the Maya calendar predicted the rash of Misplaced Pages trolling in 2012? Quick! I better write an article about that!—ayeeeeeeee. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, as they say, turns out it's not the end of the world!  ;-P Montanabw 00:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Renominate Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Offensive terms" and disambiguation

It's pretty humorous how one person will blow through an article insisting everything be changed from one term because it's offensive, then another person will swing by demanding, equally passionately, everything be changed to the other term. Usually the pendulum swings between "Native American" and "American Indian," and if it's a small mention in an article and either term is accurate, I've started letting people do what they want. Right now that's going on with Eskimo, which does need to be improved, but not necessarily in the midst of edit-warring by sockpuppets.

So, how do we collectively deal with terms that are still very viable, but less than ideal? "Sioux" is still very much in use. Marty Two Bull Sr. usually writes, "I am Oglala Lakota, which my enemies call Sioux." Over the months, I've been disambiguating between Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, and Nakoda/Assiniboine, where it's appropriate, to link other articles to the tribe in question. I've started doing this with Eskimo, trying to determine if linked articles are discussing Yup'ik or Inuit peoples (while many articles are linking to the term "Eskimo" as opposed to specific ethnic groups). So far I haven't gotten any push back, which I'm surprised by, but am curious to know other's opinions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

LOL If you didn't get a 'pushback' then presumably nobody objects, so carry on! If you do get any 'pushback', then you can decide what to do... Or were you just bored, and hoping for some 'pushback'?! ;o) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, good point. I guess I felt guilty because of the high emotions over "Eskimo" in the last two months, I felt like I was going in through the backdoor by rerouting links from other articles and needed absolution. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Proceed until apprehended. My own view is that it IS best to use tribal names and people's names for themselves wherever possible. My own little secret is that I've been quietly eliminating the word "Chief" from many of the articles where I stumble across it, partly per WP:HONORIFIC (we don't use honorifics on WP for the most part) and partly because most of these guys weren't properly called "Chief" anyway. There's a few where you just can't do so (notably Chief Joseph) without making the situation even worse, but absent moving the artivle to the person's actual name (and as Skookum1 points out, sometimes even that does not have consensus) there you have it. Montanabw 23:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can help chuck out unnecessary honorifics as well. If other folks have ongoing projects like this, if they want to share them here, maybe we can all help out? I need to get back on taking more photos of people, so articles can have living tribal members instead of endless Curtis images. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

For me it's sort of a hit and miss as I run across it. But I like the idea of posting about things like this. Maybe add to the project to do list? (I think there's a project to-do list...) Montanabw 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Transformer (spirit-being) or The Transformers (spirit-beings) or ?? for Xales/Xals of many names

I've known about the need for such an article on an important Northwest Coast topic for a long time, but been stymied by not knowing what to call him/them. Turned up on Category:Native American mythology without any other category thanks to the WP:Mythology people, based on a Lummi version of the story but unreferenced because an ANI had removed Encyclopedia Mythica from use as a ref (presumably as non-RS). See Talk:Xelas for more. It would help if OldManRivers and Murderbike and other users who are indigenous from the region where this story is known were around to help; I"m thinking rather than argue over which version of the native name to use (with or without diacriticals/special characters also an issue) the usual English usage/s are what should be used; singular as he most often is, though in many stories there are three or four of him, before he was combined into one being. I've also asked the WPMythology people to add NorthAmNative and tribal categories to such articles so that they can be found and developed monitored....Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Was my restoration of well-sourced material at Legend of Rainbow Warriors restoring racist material?

An IP is removing material they don't like at Legend of Rainbow Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), first claiming they removed it "New age group trying to edit their way into native history, removing link as they are seperate entities from William Willoyas work" and then as racism. I don't see either of them as valid reasons to remove the material (I added the quote from Niman about the book, which " purveying "a covert anti-Semitism throughout, while evangelizing against traditional Native American spirituality." This article was a fringe mess before. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As always, just find the reliable sources and footnote up the wazoo. Puts the burden on them. If there is an actual "cultural appropriation" issue out there for the topic, find it and note it, or, as I like to say, "teach the controversy." Don't fret too much about drive-bys. Montanabw 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Note Metis

Has anyone noticed that the dab page for Metis#Culture_groups lists three nearly identical articles? I wonder if these are sort of content forks and could be merged - I understand that there are US and Canadian groups, but seems like one comprehensive article beats three weak articles with a lot of duplication, particularly Métis, which is basically a list and Métis people (Canada) doesn't even cross-ref it. Thoughts? Montanabw 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I really wish people would be a bit more DIY around here....

See Talk:Gingolx,_British_Columbia#addition_of_pronunciation_tag. I know I've made this comment before, maybe not here in IPNA though. And it's not just about native articles, it's across the board. Why demand someone else do something that it only takes a few minutes to do yourself, if you weren't just spending your time dropping templates like bird-poo? And don't anybody WP:AGF on me about this, I see more template-dropping than I do article expansion, 95% of the time.Skookum1 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, the tag monsters are afoot! I think there is some guild or copyeditors contest going on or something, not sure, but 'tis The Little Red Hen season. In solidarity and agreement with your frustration, I will provide you with the ultimate tag that I keep on my talk page and that should at least put a smile back on your face Montanabw 06:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC):

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

"Like" (not sure if there's a quasi-FB tag).Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

heh: Like Montanabw 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Djembayz (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

found article needed templating....and tried a name change....

See Talk:The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples, which has been the Athabaskan Potlatch which struck me as a misnomer, and there are other cultures/peoples who also need coverage; the main Potlatch article is for now almost entirely about the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch. See my various comments.Skookum1 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The name also struck me as the title of someone's book, and the capital-p had to go per MOS, and what I changed it to was to match the necessary grammar/bold of the opening sentence of the lede per MOS, which I adjusted as you will see in the history.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proceed until apprehended; seems like a WP:BB situation to me. Montanabw 01:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I did the name change, or a version of it, and there's various comments on the talkpage. Both this and the current Potlatch article need a lot of work/additions because of the wide range of peoples and different types of potlatch.Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping my talk directly if you need more bodies to show up and comment. Montanabw 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Coastal Indians of Washington

I just ascertained, after countless maintenance edits since this was first approved and made its appearance (including edits from me) that the sources given are two curriculum pages - "not reliable sources".... never mind that mergeto Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is the obvious thing to do. Seems to me these were a class project - ?? I'll get to it in the morning, unless someone else would care to launch the merge discussion in the meantime.Skookum1 (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck I'll just do it now; in the middle of interminably long scans.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Proceed until apprehended. Montanabw 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Treaties re absence of Royal Proc info

I don't have time to work on this right now, was just cruising some minor edits and noticed the absence of any discussion of the Royal Proc on this page, and that only AADNC is used as a source for background etc., which is more than somewhat POV in flavour. See Talk:Douglas_Treaties#no_mention_of_Royal_Proc.3F.3F. Maybe in a month or two, if I'm still around, but this is a glaring omission...and there's digression about Blanshard in the article, who really had nothing to do with them.Skookum1 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans

Several users have been trying to remove the New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans website from such articles as Plastic shaman and Chuluaqui-Quodoushka‎, for some time. Personally, I see them as the best source of information about faux medicine people on the web, but of course such discussion is very contentious and the people mentioned on the site understandably decry it on blogs throughout the interwebs. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" is listed under . The site explains its organization, explains the issues, links to other resources, and has a forum for discussion, so in my mind, that makes it a valid external link; however, what do other people think? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Valid, though easier to keep if it is actually used to footnote material in a given article. Some people take WP:ELNO to an extreme for no particular ideological reason. When I run across one of those, I just toss the link onto the talk page until or unless I can work it into the article, it is much more difficult to remove. So shoot us links where needed. The group looks like a Native version of snopes.com and they are extensively linked, mostly to blogs, but some mainstream works also. Per WP:NEWSBLOG I think we can easily establish notability. Also wise to look at contribs of people removing the links. Note it linked here and here: , Montanabw 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info, especially WP:NEWSBLOG, since many blogs actually *are* the best source of information on the web about certain topics. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

AfC submission

This submission is relevant to the Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This one needs some mentoring, although I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost

Comment below is reposted. Djembayz (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Plastic shaman was nominated for deletion. The article has been around for six years and is well cited, but if any of you care to comment, the discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native American religion paganism?

See the discussion I started at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion#Template:Paganism. It's inclusion in Template:Paganism has been challenged at Template talk:Paganism but hasn't been removed. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics has been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. The nominator is comparing the category tree to that of Category:France. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Massive revamping of IPA and INPA categorization, anyone? I'm not chomping at the bit to bring this about, but it appears other folks are up for it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

As The Little Red Hen would say, who is going to help? Montanabw 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

apparently rather than massive revamping of categories is not as preferable to you as piecemeal revamping of individual categories on subjects you know nothing about......Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Another CfD for Squamish

Faced with recalcitrant responses from the re-creator of the unworkable category name Category:Squamish I have had to start a CfD on this again. Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish. Given the new item in MOS about respecting the original creator's wishes, I'm pondering also doing another RM for Squamish people to move it back to where OldManRivers created it, because of

Um, Skookum, per WP:CANVASS, you really should just post a link to the conversation here, not the arguments also. It's also a good idea to avoid commentary about other individuals with words like "recalcitrant." You are BOTH good editors with a simple difference of opinion. I will post my own thoughts over at the CfD and other project members are also welcome to do so. Montanabw 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This was posted on the same day and within minutes of starting the CfD; I had already tried to negotiate with Usyvdi about speedy renaming the category to something useful because of the problems posed by her reviving one that consensus had rightfully done away with, but she refused and told me she wanted to hear what other editors have to say. I've heard what they have to say, and other than what the other Canadian editors who do get the PRIMARYTOPIC problem that doesn't seem to register on the rest of them, they're all making judgements that don't work and which are based in half-understandings of what's going on. Unlike some who ram through RMs and CfDs without telling related WikiProjects, I believe in letting people know what's going on behind their backs..... the idea that RMs and CfDs wind up being discussed by the same crew, no matter what the topic, and that enlisting input from people who might have a stake in the outcome, or might know better than the cabal that lurks around CfDs/RMs etc, is against the rules; but so is ignoring a CfD and creating a category a CfD had done away with as not-viable. Notifying Wikiprojects of CfDs/RMs that concern them is not "canvassing" - it should be standard practice; though I've often heard gloats about this or that RM/CfD of the sort that "no we didn't have to let anyone know so we didn't". At least I'm honest, which I can't say for various others.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are supposed to do is just post the link with a neutral comment (like the Indian Scout post below). You aren't supposed to state your position, especially with negative comments about another user. Voice of experience here, I got slapped pretty smartly for doing this once, so just friendly advice. As for the rest, that particular situation has gotten so complicated that I can't even follow it anymore, I have no time to read walls of text. Montanabw 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Indian Scout"

The usage of Indian Scout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clovis People in NJ

I believe I have found an artifact belonging to the Clovis culture. It is n arrowhead measuring 3 inches high and 1 1/2 inches wide in the middle. My question is how an I find out if it is authentic Clovis and has there ever been Clovis artifacts found in NJ? Thank you. 2601:C:5900:539:B10C:E966:D5FD:FB9A (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good question to pose to www.reddit.com. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tsuu T'ina Nation -> Category:Tsuu T'ina and associated split/moves_Category:Tsuu_T'ina_and_associated_split/moves-2014-02-23T05:11:00.000Z">

Please see Talk:Tsuu_T'ina_Nation#proposed_split.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)_Category:Tsuu_T'ina_and_associated_split/moves"> _Category:Tsuu_T'ina_and_associated_split/moves">

the Red Road

There's a move discussion at Talk:The Red Road. Also may need to be some repair work at the red road, article is poorly sourced and a bit OR-ish. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles about authors ...

I started four articles a couple of weeks ago, which have received repeated tagging. I don't have enough time right now to give them the attention as they deserve. If anyone has the time or knowledge to help out, it would be appreciated. Thanks,   ~ E.N.Stanway (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

current and recent RMs re indigenous names

There are various open RMs addressing reverting native-name titles from "FOO people" forms where FOO="anglicism" ; all but one were changed by speedy renaming alleging 'common name' and 'English' but that argument was fallacious when it was made. Some of these - all but one here are main ethno articles - if not changed may result in "uncomfortable" and geographically-ambiguous/archaic category names in Category:First Nations in British Columbia:

• Owekeeno people -> Wuikinuxv (Category:Wuikinuxv)
• Okanagan people -> Syilx (Category:Syilx)
• Sechelt people -> Shishalh (category does not exist yet Category:Shishalh)
• Stawamus -> Sta7mes is not a main article but if it is not reverted to its original state will set a precedent for other 'not English' spellings in other villages within what is for now Category:Squamish people

I speedy moved Comox people to K'omoks and created Category:K'omoks due to (a) geographic name confusion with the Town of Comox and (b) to match the other main-ethno article titling convention; it may need adjusting as the K'omoks name may not apply to the Sliammon (Tla'amin) and Homalco, they may require separate categories in the long run. In some cases this is not possible as there is no standard native-name romanization of e.g. Musqueam people (Hwmethkwyem is what's on their current band site (when romanized, it includes a theta, for example, in the orthodox Hulquminum, but as I recall there another somewhat different version that perhaps was favoured by a different band government; still worth considering Hwmethkwyem though, relative to consistency with other ethno article. Sts'Ailes has been around for a while, as Chehalis people is far and away more likely to be taken for the group in Washington. I also successfully to the category for Danezaa to match that title, it was at "Dunneza" which is an Albertan spelling but not the most common form; Category:Beaver people would invite too many jokes and has that "FOO people" problem too. Category:Saanich is not viable for the Saanich people (WSANEC) for the same reason that Category:Squamish cannot be for the Skwxwu7mesh; major geographic name collision; which is why T'zouke was coined for Sooke, Tz'uminus for Chemainus, and so on; for Semiahmoo the native form is SEMYOME but there are only three articles there so far (band, people, reserve) and unlikely to be subcategories.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed RMs

• Carrier people -> Dakelh closed in favour of Dakelh due to (a) "Carrier" does not include all Dakelh and (b) RS favour Dakelh
• Squamish people -> Skwxwu7mesh closed due to an alleged COMMONNAME decision and a "unanimous" (except for me) "votes" against; that the realities of the RS now favour Skwxwu7mesh was not admitted or acknowledged by the "voters" and this RM, like its predecessor, was closed as quickly as possible and any chance for more input from other editors silenced; I've been told to take it to MoveReview which I will try but I note there that the actual facts don't matter as much as the "conduct" and "tone" of the application to review; I'll do the best to restrain myself in pointing out that the COMMONNAME claim was fallacious and mistaken on the part of the closer, and that points I made about consistency or main ethno-article titles in the same topic area and more from WP:UCN which gets glossed over and ignored (as pointed out on Talk:Stawamus).
• Another current RM for Squamish -> Squamish (disambiguation) and Squamish, British Columbia -> Squamish on PRIMARYTOPIC grounds has been opposed on the premise that the town is not the primarytopic, despite overwhelming RS/google proof that it clearly is (as nearly anybody who speaks Canadian English or is from BC knows...). Unique Canadian town names are un-disambiguated by standing convention; Chemainus is another similar case like Sechelt where the town has no disambiguation and the related ethno article is, or should be at, the native name.

I'm of the opinion that the needless addition of "people" to Tsimshian people, Haida people, Gitxsan people, Tahltan people, Nisga'a people and more should be taken off; the FOO people problem is why someone, who didn't know about the town (and didn't care, as it turns out) re-created Category:Squamish after that was nixed by a CfD and Category:Squamish people hijacked (temporarily) for "people who are Squamish"; clarity, conciseness and consistency, three of the five characteristics in WP:UCN about titles, are not well-served; nor is brevity, as the addition of "people" was completely pointless; various mini-disambiguation pages were created by one of the resident amateur linguists on the premise that the languages were equally primarytopic to the people, which is not demonstrably the case. Another of these, outside BC, is Mi'kmaq which was turned into a disambiguation page by that same editor and the main article is now at Mi'kmaq people though the category remains at Category:Mi'kmaq (and where there is a Category:Mi'kmaq people for "people who are Mi'kmaq").

Trying to correct the item-by-item one-by-one attack on native names on these articles has proven to be exhaustive and I have been made the butt of attacks because of my writing/information style, and the RMs invariably draw in people who don't know the subject matter and only field their pet guidelines (even when they're wrong about them) and also who have no appreciation, even an antipathy, for indigenous languages and indigenous preferences. The lack of guidelines in this area, which I tried to propose here but was shot down, remains a big hole in IPNA and without them, more wrecking-crew changes by those wanting to "anglicize" names unfamiliar to them will continue. The nominator of the first RM on Talk:Squamish people even used a pejorative, derisive tone about the name Skwxwu7mesh - that it was "gibberish" - and there was at least one person in that RM didn't even know who the Skwxwu7mesh were, he thought the RM was about the Suguamish and had no clue about the town of Squamish at first.

I've done what I can to preserve the integrity of the naming convention evolved at the time these articles/categories were created with native names, but have found myself the target of hostility and rejection for no reason related at all to the subject matter; "TLDR" is used as an excuse to not read or respond to the response I make to simplistic points which, being simplistic, gloss over complexities and persistently ignore the established support for native names not just in the old consensus, but in the results of last year's RMs on St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa all of which were successsful. The "working/talking in a bubble" aspect of one-by-one CfDs and RMs done in isolation from the precedent-setting ones listed fails to address the full context of such articles/categories and exemplifies narrow-view decision-making at its worst; not having any regard for consequences....or conventions/consistency.Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Two Four other related RMs, where the town is the PRIMARYTOPIC so should have the undisambiguated title currently occupied by a dab page; Lillooet I may file a similar RM for; these are the current RMs to strip unneeded, against-convention comma-province dabs from unique town names and all are rooted in anglicized versions of the local band/people name:

• Squamish
• Comox - the FN people are the K'omoks now
• Chemainus the FN people are the Stz'uminus now
• Sooke - the FN people are the T'souke now

More may come.Skookum1 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

side comment

Yes, I'm tired of it all, and aghast at the way I've been treated and my ideas not just ignored but insulted. "Get a life" was taunted at me about the whole schlemozzle about Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh, and my invitation to the above-listed RMs at that editor's page (which she deleted with the "get a life" comment, even though being the one who set the cat among the pigeons by barging into BC FN categories by ignoring consensus and creating Category:Squamish), but does anyone reprimand them for NPA or AGF or CIVIL? Trying to talk common sense and being responded with by ignorance and insults is needless to say very grating, and the obstructionist nature of wikipedia bureacracy and the contrarian, hidebound narrow-minded cabals that hang around the various procedures pages is becoming more and more clear to me. All very disappointing....and tiresome. Why do people have to vote on things they don't want to learn about (TLDR, y'know), and scream "personal attack" when someone points out that they're wrong about what they're saying, yet engage in personal attacks in the course of doing that???Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"FOO people" -> "FOO" RMs, and some "FOO tribe" ones also_"FOO"_RMs,_and_some_"FOO_tribe"_ones_also-2014-03-12T10:04:00.000Z">

RMs to try to deal with the "FOO people" problem underway; only 120 so far, probably about the same yet to go. Some "FOO tribe" ones were not for federally-recognized tribes e.g. Nespelem tribe and Sanpoil tribe which are part of the Colville Confederacy. Others never were federally-recognized tribes at all, and the names are so unique no disambigution with "tribe" was ever needed. Here are the four talkpages with 30 RMs each:

• Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move - notes for the whole group, i.e. the three following, are made here.
• Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move
• Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move
• Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move

In those cases where the move target is a dab page I have added an RM to move that to "FOO (disambiguation)". In many cases the target is already a redirect to the current article, an indication of how unnecessary all these moves were; and adding "people" fails "Concisness" as per WP:UCN. The "FOO people" paradigm is for "individuals who are FOO", as noted by a certain editor re a certain botched category move now at CfD.Skookum1 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)_"FOO"_RMs,_and_some_"FOO_tribe"_ones_also"> _"FOO"_RMs,_and_some_"FOO_tribe"_ones_also">

WP:ETHNICGROUP guideline

User:Kwamikagami User:Skookum1 has noted to me your edit "this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" can you please link here to previous discussion, or preferably RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In any such debate, reference should be made to the various RMs listed in my reply below, and also to open RMs on the same issue cf Wuikinuxv, Shishalh etc.Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The "discussion" in question is re

It sounds like you're asking me about Skookum's POV, so I'm not sure how to respond. — kwami (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

kwami

No, I'm asking you what I asked you. Please re-read it if it is not clear. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it might be the same thing you asked on my talk page, but even after reading it several times I can't be sure. — kwami (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

POV? No, facts on the ground per modern Canadian English and cultural values; your attitude that these do not matter as you often state is in direct contravention of WP:ETHNICGROUP:

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.:

This is an important and thoughtful - modern - guideline you have persistently ignored while touting and flouting your own self-authored one while doing scads of undiscussed moves, some of which I managed to get reverted despite your determined efforts to block me St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa, Tsilhqot'in sound familiar? Dakelh, another one of your undiscussed moves, was also recently reverted by a wise editor who understood the differences laid out by the article's founder and which you should have known yourself. The POV is yours, that these names in modern English do not matter and only your academic/obsolete terms should prevail.Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Start again

Kwami, here you removed the db template Skookum put on K'omoks, with "remove db notice; this title is part of existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" as the reason. Please link to existing conventions to do with BC First Nations peoples and demonstrate that it is part of BC English now and the preferred name per WP:ETHNICGROUP" In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove a template there.

Link from here? It sounds like you're asking me to create a WP article about my opinions, which would not be appropriate.

Why BC English? This isn't BC Misplaced Pages. That's like Hindian editors insisting that Ganges should be moved to Ganga. See WP:commonality. — kwami (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• NA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• NA-importance Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles