Wikipedia

Talk:Chipewyan

(Redirected from Talk:Chipewyan people)
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Red-tailed hawk in topic Dënesųłı̨ne
Learn more about this page

Contents

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • This page needs to be rewritten to incorporate the new words written in the Dene/Chipewyan language.
  • Does the paragraph in Dene translate the previous paragraph? If so it should be noted. Perhaps with (Dene translation) written at the end of the paragraph.
  • Does Bëghą́nı̨ch’ërë mean Patuanak or English River? On the Patuanak, Saskatchewan page it is written that Patuanak in Dene sounds like Boni Cheri. Is that the same as Bëghą́nı̨ch’ërë. Maybe we can write the word then the translation like the following: ..... Patuanak ( Bëghą́nı̨ch’ërë) ....... Kayoty 07:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in an English Wikipedia, especially without translation; I put it in the section below for archiving purposes. Patuanak and other items should be linked, they never should have been bolded the way they were. Quite a few others terms here can be linked, or redirected.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

text in Denesuline removed

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Don't know why this was on there, or what it says, saving it here for "posterity". This is not a Denesuline-language Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yúnısı dënesųłı̨ne t’ąt’ú harálɂá nı̨sı́ nǫ́k’ë dzıkërëdaı́ łı̨nı̨, łą hánëłt’éhılé nı̨, sı̨ne chu xáıye k’ëtł’a nǫ́k’é nąnëhóɂá nuhënęnę k’ëyaghë. Náralzé, tsádhëdh kádánı̨dhën chu łué hu horëlyų t’á ɂá ɂëhëná sı́ há kádánı̨dhën nı̨.
Kú t’óho tsádhëdh dëne nı̨déł hu, dënesųłı̨ne hotıé yët’orı̨łthér nı̨, hóbëtł’ësı́ tsádhëdh hëtł’él hıjá nı̨ ɂá, dënesųłı̨ne háı̨dël nı̨ ɂëłótsëlı́ hots’ęn. Ku ɂëdırı t’á dënesųłı̨ne ɂená chu ɂëłá ɂëłk’ënádé t’ąt’é nı t’ok’e náradé nare dësnëdhe k’eyaghë chu tunëdhë narë, yunısı kąt’ú dëne húdéł nı̨.

I suspect it's a translation of the preceding in-English paragraph.Skookum1 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Allan Adam paper 2013

edit

User:Nordendene published the "Allan Adam paper 2013" on Thanadeltth'er and the Dene Suline. User:Nordendene also seems to be the author of the paper as in a previous edit January 30, 2013 he refers to his website at *Official website with the comment (I have ıncluded dëne names of communıtıes and ınserted some of the outlınes ınto dëne yatıe. I have also included my web site link for people to refer to for free language services. Marsı tchogh). So this does not appear to be a copyright violation. .Kayoty 05:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

– Most of these were originally at their stand-alone name as proposed; the addition of "people" is unnecessary as being against "conciseness" per naming guidelines (i.e. unnecessarily long). Re this first one listed, and in many others, the rationale given was "vs. lang per naming conv." though I can find no such naming convention stating that a people's language is of equally PRIMARYTOPIC or MOSTCOMMON re the people's name. In some cases the target page is already a disambiguation page; in those cases I have also added a move-to-disambiguation RM, when I am aware of them. In all cases where these are the main article for an FN or tribal category, the category name is also stand-alone; and many have "FOO people" subcategories for "people who are FOO", which makes the main article title at conflict with that, and with the usual context of "FOO people". Some I have avoided, such as Okanagan people (now at RM to move to Syilx and Squamish people (failed RM to move it to Skwxwu7mesh but still at CfD because of the overwhelming name conflict with the town of Squamish, British Columbia - Squamish is a disambiguation page currently also with an active RM; another I have avoided is Coeur d'Alene. Some with "FOO tribe" are not for federally recognized tribes, e.g. Androscoggin tribe; in some cases they now belong to a federally recognized tribe e.g. the Nespelem tribe who are part of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, which is their federally-recognized tribe. So far I have covered all Canadian provinces and territories and six US states, other cases like this abound and IMO were all unnecessary and in some cases Mi'kmaq needless disambiguation pages were created, some of which I have already dealt with e.g. by redirecting Chipewyan from the two-item dab page that was created to Chipewyan people. In cases like Entiat and Walla Walla, with counties and towns named for them, I have added RMs for moving those pages. This multiple RM is the tip of the iceberg and is a consequence of piecemeal and often willy-nilly addition of "people" or "tribe" where the addition was unnecessary; in the case of the Chinook rather than tear up the Chinook disambiguation page to Chinook (disambiguation) I have proposed Tsinuk which is their preferred modern spelling, coined to distinguish from the other uses of that name. Some of these may not pass, but the rest I believe the case is clear that the addition of "people" to "FOO" was completely unnecessary and has resulted in awkward complications re subcategories of main ethno categories and, given that the standard for "FOO people" is "persons who are FOO", conflicts in a big way with naming conventions in that regard. Skookum1 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

– Skookum1 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. These names are generally ambiguous. Should "Wyandot" be the Wyandot people, the Wyandot Nation, or the Wyandot language? We've had this debate before, and decided on being specific. Also, category names are utterly irrelevant. We can name them after articles if we like, but there's no reason to name articles after categories. "Tsinuk" is also a bad idea: The overwhelmingly COMMONNAME is "Chinook". Practically no-one's going to recognize "Tsinuk". — kwami (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Your Wyandot examples are flawed; the Wyandot Nation government and the language are secondary uses, not primary (except to linguists who only read linguistics, perhaps). "The Wyandot" does not refer to either government or language, but to the people.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Adding people to the title is needed especially for small groups of people. It is also used in the following titles: French people, English people, Sami people......Kayoty 17:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC).... Support Chipewyan people move to Dënesųłiné or Denesuline....Kayoty 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
      • "Denesuline" is how this name commonly appears in Canadian English print media (and is used in broadcasting, often with the mispronunciation "DenesooLEEN"; using special characters on any moved title will incite the WP:UE crowd, though a few cases remain out there; special characters like the colon in Sto:lo and the 7 in Skwxw7mesh are rendered as such in English media, however. I moved Dogrib people from that archaic and derisive to Tłı̨chǫ but intend to file an RM to move it to the usual-English Tlicho which I couldn't do because, unlike others around here, I don't have "move over redirect" privileges......Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The first two you name are "individuals who are FOO". In the case of the Sami, the issue boils down to "most common usage" in English, which nothing else on that page is to the same degree as the people are. How many global ethno articles there are out there in the "FOO people" format, I seem to recall some issue about African articles/categories in that regard.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Too much ambiguity and too many other things--rivers, mountains, lakes, etc. use these names.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • But how many of them are primarytopic? Any rivers etc named after these peoples are secondary topics in that the name originates with the people. The geographic ambiguities in many cases are why, where possible/available, the "old convention" called for the use of the native-spelled/authentic form.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support all of the entries where the target already redirects to the article (e.g., the 30 proposed moved in this list) per WP:PRECISION. Oppose the others where a disambiguation page exists (e.g., Oneida, Walla Walla) per User:Mike Cline. These should be discussed individually on the merits. There are two types of moves proposed here and, ideally, they should have been proposed separately. —  AjaxSmack  01:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Indeed they should have been discussed separately, and not speedy moved from their original stand-alone state as they were. Yes perhaps I should have grouped them, but the overall issue of "FOO people"'s is why they all came at once. Issues about that and former "FOO nation" and "FOO tribe" titles were why the "old convention" was to bypass any such label and just use "FOO", and as a general rule in the "native" spelling, to avoid the geographic confusions that result, especially when "people" is stripped from the anglicize form (as was done in isolation re Category:Squamish); including Oneida and Walla Walla was a bit pointy, but were included for consistency and likewise re consistency there is a huge list of standalone-no "people/tribe" disambiguation ethno articles out there; and the "old convention" was that "people" was often redundant, e.g. with St'at'imc the -imc ending means "people"; "Haida" just means "the people" i.e. "us". My WP:POINT here is to raise the issue of a guideline for native name-use which has been constantly shoved aside. I could have just kept it to cases like Mi'kmaq which shouldn't have been made a mini-dab, as the people are by far the most common/primary use of the stand-alone term. And already once, a main article title has been used to create an ambiguous category Category:Squamish, stripped of "people" from the main article's change to Squamish people - and that has been done TWICE, the second time by someone upset over "FOO people" meaning "individuals who are FOO". Harmonization of category titles with main article titles should not be automatic; but since it is, the "FOO people" format of these ethno articles is problematic; in cases where the native name is now standard for the people - Yakama, Palus, Spokan, Gitxsan, Nisga'a, adding "people" is against "conciseness" as unnecesarily long; and confusing re "individuals who are FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose bulk nomination. Per e.g. English or Uzbek; it is common practice to have a disambiguation page when there is both Foo people and Foo language. Tassedethe (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • It was/is also common practice to use standalone names, and that "common practice" you speak of was not done by consensus for this group of articles, but overwhelmingly by a single editor acting alone; the Mi'kmaq people are by far and away the primarytopic of that term, and references to the language and other secondary topics named for the primary topic are easy enough to deal with by a hatnote, as on Cree. The madcap creation of disambiguation pages, many of them contrary to dab guidelines as having only two entries, which was the case with Chipewyan until I adjusted the redirect, is uncalled for and not addressed by any convention or guideline as being valid; rather the opposite. There is no reason for Modoc or Gitxsan to be disambiguated that way; a three-item dab is also unneeded when hatnotes are available and especially when both other articles relate directly to the primary topic, as with Gitxsan (Gitxsan Nation by the way is one of the very few cases in Canada where "FOO Nation" is not about an "Indian act government" i.e. band government or a tribal council; it is the term used to refer to the traditional governance embodied by the Office of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan which has no government recognition as a formal body). For every case of your "common practice" that's out there, there are at least as many "common practices" which are not the same, and the dab pages you refer to were largely created, again, by one editor acting alone, without consultation or consensus of any kind....invoking the claim of "per convention" for a convention that does not exist, likewise claiming a consensus for his actions which is nowhere to be found; last year's RMs to revert his actions on five major ethno article in BC decided clearly against what he has claimed, despite his determined resistance/stonewalling.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Procedural oppose any swapping of a page with a disambiguation page should be requested separately, for every swap instance, a separate discussion should occur. Any displacement of a disambiguation page and replacement of its location for some other use should also occur separately for each instance. These are all different primary topic discussions. Several of the targets are disambiguation pages, so overwriting a disambiguation page is a primary topic dispute, and should each be discussed separately. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • As per my reply on Talk:Yaquina people, many of those disambiguation pages were created without procedure of any kind, and PRIMARYTOPIC on them was never addressed; only false claims that terms deriving from the people name were 'equally primary', which they are not.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment took me a few hours, but all RMbot messages on target pages of all four bulk RMs now redirect to this as the centralized discussion. I will do the same on the next couple of batches (40-odd states to go...). What I noticed in 19 out of 20 out of them I'll discuss tomorrow; it's 1:24 am here.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Most of the proposed titles are needlessly ambiguous, and breaks with established practice across all ethnic related articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • That is a misleading claim but not surprising given your track record opposing me and your PAs towards me; that "established practice" is NOT across ALL IPNA articles and "FOO people" has that other complication which is also an established practice across "individuals who are FOO". And the "established practice" in these cases is 90 percent the work of one editor acting alone, "establishing a practice" on his own say-so, claiming guidelines that do not exist or were dealt with in isolation from other guidelines or even the full texts of those self-same guidelines. AND 90% of these at least are NOT ambiguous, and were in fact at "FOO" prior to being changed; so evident is this that the wording of the ledes, which were not changed, indicates that the common usage in English in these cases is not "FOO people" but simply "FOO", as in "the FOO are a Native American/First Nations/indigenous people in", and on most of them there is a hatnote "for other uses see FOO (disambiguation) (not to "FOO" as you'd think would have been the case if said reckless editor had done more than just change titles and move on; some articles have the FOO people wording in the lede but other editors tidied that up, where it does occur; but it's rare. Established practice was JUST "FOO" until the reckless change of the bulk (95%? more??) change to them in 2011, as was the convention established early on that - while y'all keep on talking about conventions, none of your ilk will even acknowledge as extant for a very long time; even though there remain many "FOO" articles in all province and state indigenous categories. Exaggeration and misrepresentation and outright fabrication is nothing new to me around here, but man is it easy to shoot holes full of too.Skookum1 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Since this proposal has to bearings on the general approach to nomenclature of ethnic groups I have notified WP:Ethnic Groups of this discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Good idea. Where's the relevant WikiProject re the "FOO people" = "individuals who are FOO" issue, which is also an "established practice, so vital to someone that she applied it wantonly to create one category with a highly ambiguous name without caring about the consequences....(very funny to hear you talk about these names being ambiguous LOL). I'm all for broader input here but the point here was indigenous peoples of North America only, where various cultural and geographic issues apply, not ethnic groups worldwide...the "FOO people" "disambiguation" clearly is highly ambiguous and something other than "people" must be found to replace it due to the usual meaning of "individuals who are FOO", which is used for both main article titles and overwhelmingly for categories (99+%). And so, the easiest way to deal with the problem of the unnecessary disambiguation that was applied to them, particularly totally unique ones, is to revert them to "FOO" which is where the bulk of them were to start with. cf. what WP:UCN has to say about "conciseness". i.e. brevity as well as clarity. Androscoggin and Timpanog and Ojibwe do not need any extra words in their titles, especially ones that confuse the article's type of content with "individuals who are FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment in keeping with the premise of your notice to WP:Ethnic groups I have done the same for WP:Disambiguation, as their guidelines are clearly at issue here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose all. Explicit disambiguation of people vs. language is preferable. We also have policy on this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), which says "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles". --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, then, that guideline needs to be changed, because WP:WikiProject Disambiguation guidelines state clearly that two and three-line disambiguation pages are not called for, and I think that also is to be found in other areas of naming conventions pages. When a hatnote can be used, it should be and mini-dab pages not created. If that guideline says that, it is in conflict with other guidelines and must be changed. And in many of these cases "people" and sometimes 'tribe" was added when there was no language article connected e.g. Androscoggin.Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Further comment about that naming convention; it presupposes that the language is equally as PRIMARYTOPIC and MOSTCOMMON, but that is definitely not the case for the bulk of them, ranging from obscure ones like Raritan tribe (Lenape speakers, so a language article does not share that title) or major titles like Gitxsan where the people are highly notable by that name, but the language is not (and is called Gitxsanimaax, but that title was likely "anglicized" to Gitxsan language by the same acting-alone editor. So that convention did not address PRIMARYTOPIC or MOSTCOMMON issues, and is flawed thereby (in addition to the directive from WP:Disambiguation). Once again, I hear a guideline or convention quoted in isolation with no other considerations taken into account - including other guidelines that conflict with the one you are citing's obvious problems.Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Comment As I suspected, that passage of the naming convention for languages was authored by the very same editor who went ahead and then applied it to the bulk of these articles despite the result being contrary to various other guidelines and conventions including dab policies, WP:UCN, and PRIMARYTOPIC. Moving the goalposts etc. To me that's a conflict of interest and a blatant abuse of guideline-making for a particular agenda i.e. the claim that these peoples' names refer equally "primarily" to the languages they speak, which is not born out by COMMONNAME et al - unless you are only using linguistics books as sources, that is. I haven't looked on the naming conventions talkpage to see if this was ever discussed....but a "consensus of one" is no way to write a guideline.Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support the peoples are the primary topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - There is no reason to induce more confusion than is necessary. Disambiguation is preferable for the sake of simplicity. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I know I'll be told that guidelines and conventions in other-language Wikipedias are not relevant to English-language Wikipedia, but:
    • German Wikipedia, which is very thorough on indigenous North American topics, by and large does not use any kind of disambiguation except when necessary; by way of examples their corresponding category for Washington state and for British Columbia have only a very few with the dab "(Volk)" attached, one with "Ethnie" (St'at'imc). I also do note that unlike English Wikipedia they do not distinguish between a people and their band government however it's also worth noting that many of their indigenous articles are much more fully fleshed out than the English counterparts, e.g. for Katzie, compare Katzie people (which should just be Katzie because there is no separate language article other than Halkomelem and, other than their IRs, no place named Katzie.
    • Of other-language wikipedias the only one that has a corresponding category for BC is Turkish and there, again, there is no disambiguation; and plural forms e.g. Kaskalar ("Kaskas") for the Kaska Dena.
    • French Wikipedia also uses plurals, and some "(tribu)" dabs,
    • Croatian Wikipedia uses no dabs and, I note, a lot of very native-authentic names such as Spwiya'laphabsh for the Puyallup, including many titles not seen in English Wikipedia (as also the case with German Wikipedia).
    • Serbian Wikipedia doesn't have much and does disambiguate one and has no qualms about using native-language names e.g. ".tskowa'xtsEnux" for the Moses band (also found in the Croatia WP].
    • Russian Wikipedia also does not disambiguate except in the case of Walla Walla (Валла-валла (племя)).
    • Spanish Wikipedia has both undisambiguated titles and disambiguated ones.
    • What strikes me especially in the German case is the more intense work on actual content of articles vs the only activity on English Wikipedia names by some editors is fly-by-night and rather surreptitious name games ("surreptitious" here also applies to major changes to guidelines without consultation/consensus in order to expedite those moves by pointing to the guideline as unilaterally amended (gee why didn't I try that?) with no actual work on the article, not even fixing ledes to match the new title, never mind real content. The German Katzie content is so good I'm gonna have to translate it over to the English page, in fact; I imagine I'll find the same on various others. So while guidelines from other language wikipedia may be of no concern to guideline-crafters here, or guideline-citers, they do point to a global practice which also indicates that, at least in other languages, stand-alone names for these people are just fine.Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • It would probably be better to handle this through a broader request for comments, maybe encompassing "Language", "Society", "History", and "Politics" as relevant interests. It is general practice that the bare word is a disambiguation page, pointing to both the people and the language. (See French, Vietnamese, Xhosa, or Guugu Yimithirr, for example). If you want to change that common practice, you'll want participation from as many users as possible. That said, there doesn't appear to be much support for this proposed move, so maybe the RFC is moot. Cnilep (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why would anyone "fix ledes to match the new title"? We're supposed to bold the title, or elements of the title, where they first appear in the lead, not contort the lead to parrot the title. — kwami (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're a laff riot. Duh, from what I remember of MOS the bold in the lede should match the title. And funny you should mention that, the bulk of opening lines show the proper English use of these terms, as standalone. "The FOO are an indigenous people" (not the three words between "FOO" and "people". Normal English meaning of "Chipewyan people said that..." is in reference to individuals who are Chipewyan, i.e. certain ones of them; that usage does not normally get used to refer to the group as a whole because it's perfectly normal to use them in standalone "FOO" form and evidence of that is all over these articles. And by the way, since you were so industrious labouring over the guideline you then used as a lawnmower, and given that name changes are supposed to see the text tidied up by the changer (there is a guideline out there about that) and also that they're supposed to clean up page links to the changed page when changing them....I guess you were too busy mowing through hundreds of articles and well, you just don't care about such niceties, or about consulting others when making such sweeping changes and then being too lazy to clean up after yourself. You and your precious personal guideline were concocted without regard to any other guideline or even the rest of naming conventions i.e. the five characteristics for starters. This little dodge of yours is all too reminiscent of your behaviour during the RMs you can't admit you lost and which set precedents that you should chew on for the next time you re-draft the naming guideline to suit yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per problems with bulk handling of disambiguation pages and differences from WP:NCLANG as already noted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Reply Is nobody listening to the point that that guideline was authored by one of the participants in this discussion and that it was written without consultation by affected wikiprojects (Disambig, Ethnic groups, IPNA, WP United States, WPCanada) and who was the same person who disregarded standing convention, creating his own and then applying it across the board? Including anglicizations that since six RMs in BC overturned them? Is one guideline, created by one author, over a host of articles he has used to change (and determinedly resist actions to revert his changes, cf his behaviour in those RMs), mean nothing in the face of those precedent RMs, or all the other guidelines of the naming convention? And of the previous discussions/consensus which created the model for the stand-alone names? Is one guideline created in isolation from all considerations it affects created by one author who is here, in a somewhat COI capacity no less, going to outweigh dozens of other guideline passages? 'Cause that's just not right.Skookum1 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Many of the objections here regarding dab pages are easily resolvable by using native-preferred endonyms instead of allegedly "most common" anglicisms in older sources. IN the case of this lead article, the common and overwhelmingly-used term now in Canada is Denesuline, whether in two words "Dene Suline" or one. We just don't hear "Chipewyan" anymore, not in media, not by the people themselves and duh, despite objections elsewhere that "we don't care what the people call themselves" in WP:ETHNICGROUP it says straight-out
      • "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."
    • That's pretty clear huh? So in many cases here we have obsolete, sometimes offensive when not simply archaic names, have replaced widely-used ethnonyms that are now the modern standard, preferred by the people themselves and in wide use in the Canadian media. Another such is Deh Cho, which was "anglicized" to a "most common in linguistics books" Slavey people; yes that's a dab page for now but shouldn't be; everthing else on there is named for this people's name for themselves, including a major region of the NWT that is not, please note, called "Slavey Region" nor is there a Slavey (electoral district). Nor is there a Slavey Tribal Council. The spurious claim that names like Deh Cho are "not English" is rubbish, as any Canadian knows. Also found on some talkpages are discussions like this one Talk:Holikachuk_people#Derogatory_term_in_bibliography (been there since 2008) and note ish ishwar's scold of someone complaining about the title being derisive "you shouldnt just remove this name as you have been doing as it is very prevalent in the anthropological literature. You should, of course, note that the name is dispreferred by tribal members.". "Dispreferred"?? Euphemism for "offensive" or what? Clearly what the people named in article think is relevant has to be taken into account and academic works about them which use archaic and/or offensive terms should be discounted, whether they are "prevalent" in anthropological (or linguistics) literature or not. Time for anthropologists and linguistics types to wake up and smell the coffee and get with the times, IMO. This was all discussed in the "old convention"...apparently of no concern to the author of WP:NCLANG, among so much else. Actually very explicitly he's said, often, that what peoples call themselves is not relevant on Wikipedia - a direct violation of the WP:ETHNICGROUPS guideline just posted above.Skookum1 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support for "Chipewyan → Denesuline", but Oppose for "abc people → abc (simply)" --Kmoksy (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment as you can see, I've annotated each entry's title history in detail, as to what the target is or isn't and how it came to be. Uysvdi cited WP:TWODABS twice and it's clear that WP:NCLANG was not written with that guideline taken into account (and therefore needs serious revision), or the reality that PRIMARYTOPIC means tht "FOO" is the mandated-by-naming conventions title for any PRIMARYTOPIC, which she also cites when redirecting dab pages back to the original article, though under the changed "people" name instead of to the original. I will do the same on the other three pages later on; this may be WP:POINTy but it's necessary, given the various objections here about dabs to indicate which ones are simply redirects, and which are contrary to WP:TWODABS or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; all such moves were undiscussed and without consensus, as was the passage from WP:NCLANG that keeps getting cited as reasons to oppose.Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • comment all title histories on this group of RMs have now been completed (see Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move. Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move, Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move. Those where the target is a redirect to the current title are IMO an open-and-shut case for reversion to "FOO", others were the target is a dab page are often pages where the people are the primary target and the target should be "FOO (disambiguation)". As you will see from the annotations, many of the current "FOO" dab pages were created as "FOO (disambiguation)" and many only concern secondary topics devolving from the peoples. Some I have withdrawn, e.g. Walla Walla, Snohomish and Entiat because of genuine PRIMARYTOPIC issue with well-known county/city names (or in Tillamook's case, with the cheese).Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago58 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This was a difficult discussion to assess, for two reasons. The first is that it is an instance of a wider dispute about whether it is preferable for an article on an ethnic group to include the word people. Editors on both sides made assertions about guidelines such as WP:NCET and WP:NCL, which brought more heat than light. Editors disagree about the meaning of those guidelines, about the extent to which they represent community consensus, and about possible conflicts between them. The guidelines are also unstable, and have been repeatedly edited in the course of this debate by some of the participants in this debate. In weighing this discussion, I have therefore ignored both guidelines, and arguments based on them. I urge editors to open an RFC on the principles set out in those guidelines, rather than having the same argument hashed out in countless move discussions.
The second problem in assessing the discussion was the conduct of the nominator, whose verbosity, personal attacks and rants about "cabals", people needing to "get your noses out of the past", turkeys, etc are unacceptable breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. Discussions should be focused and civil, and contributions should be concise. The nominator's acrimonious verbosity is deeply disruptive, and deters editors from participating in the debate.
One rationale offered by the nominator was WP:UNDAB. That is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. An essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, and may usefully be cited as a place to read a particular line of reasoning, but should not be cited as if it represents a community consensus. I have ignored it in weighing the discussion.
That leaves two arguments in favour of renaming the article: common name, and the preference of the group concerned.
As to common usage, the nomination offered assertions but no evidence. Labattblueboy linked to Google Books and Scholar results limited to year 2000 onwards, which which showed that Chipewyan is used about 14 times more often in Gscholar, and 35 times more often in Gbooks. That evidence is decisive, because per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
Kayoly offered evidence of usage in govt sources, and on a popular website published by a university which says that prefer their self-naming term, Denesuliné. Assuming that this assertion is accurate, it is a factor we should consider in weighing which title to use. However, the primary purpose of an article title is to use title "most recognisable" to our readers, and the evidence presented in this discussion is that the old name Chipewyan is more recognisable by at least one order of magnitude, so the result is that the page is not moved.
This outcome will be disappointing to those who support using the names preferred by the people themselves, and I sympathise with that view. However, as a tertiary publication, Wikipedia follows the usage in reliable sources rather than leading change. That inevitably means that our nomenclature will sometimes lag behind popular usage. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Chipewyan people → Denesuline – proposed title was created as redirect to Chipewyan by Ish Ishwar on Dec 15, 2005. Chipewyan title was moved by Kwami to redirect to Chipewyan people on Feb 1 2011 contrary to both WP:UNDAB and WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). "Denesuline" is how this name commonly appears in Canadian English print media (and is used in broadcasting, often with the mispronunciation "DenesooLEEN"; using special characters on any moved title will incite the WP:UE crowd despite WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), though a few cases remain out there; special characters like the colon in Sto:lo and the 7 in Skwxwu7mesh are rendered as such in English media, however. I moved Dogrib people from that archaic and derisive to Tłı̨chǫ but intend to file an RM to move it to the usual-English Tlicho which I couldn't do because, unlike others around here, I don't have "move over redirect" privileges. Skookum1 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
As per Talk:Tlingit people and other areas where I bothered to reply to you, it was you who didn't deign to hold a centralized discussion before moving "thousands of articles" to suit yourself. I was criticized for not filing all these separately re the recent bathwater closures o the bulk RM, and now I'm being criticized for not having a centralized ciscussion when I DID. Get a grip on your weaseling, Kwami it's tiresome, as is having to clean up articles you've moved when on your drive-by namechange campaign and your anti-wikipedian glib comment about "nobody [does that]". No, not you, no indeed, I know this all too well.Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Per Kwami, also I want to see reliable sources that establish that one usage is now more common or preferred over another - we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, gee we've been forcefed the notion that a language is as primary a topic as the people who speak it as "Kwami's word for it" or "Maunus' word for it"..... Wikipedia also does not work by a small group of editors crafting a guideline to advance an agenda at odds with various guidelines they seem to make a point of deliberately ignoring. "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If it's common in English it should be the article topic" from WP:ETHNICGROUP is 'how Wikipedia works'. Open minds help, I sure don't see it from NCLANG crowd. And re this particular change, why don't you yourself limit your googles to Canadian media/sources and "since 1990" or so. Chipewyan is an obsolete term very rarely heard nowadays......and I live in the country in question and listen to Canadian media including APTN and of course the CBC and, duh, read newspapers and magazines that aren't gathering dust on distant university bookshelves. All I'm hearing today are posts from your cabal ranting the same thing over and over NCLANG yada yada and "Skookum1's opinion is not relevant"....no buddy, the facts on the ground in Canada matter, as do the people's choice of how to refer to themselves even in Wikipedia, though it's been the pretense of your lot for a while that "we don't care what the people prefer to be called"..... Denesuline, however spelled, is how these people are referred to in the country that they live in, whether defined as the Northwest Territories/Alberta or Canada as a whole. "Chipewyan" is OBSOLETE. Why don't you guys get your noses out of the past and the parochial terminology of colonialist academic sources from the past and wake up and smell the bannock. We're not talking about museum objects on a shelf here, we're talking about a major component of the population of northern Canada where this name is the norm. Don't believe me? I can't recall just now what's in the first RM but I know Kayoty and I think another joined in; like me, he knows that Denesuline, however spelled, is the modern, acceptable form, which Chipewyan is not. Same with Dogrib/Tlicho and Slavey/Deh Cho|Sahtu..... the latter of those sets is what is modern English, not dog-eared academic English with no regard for cultural sensitivity or respect for these people. But you don't respect me as a person or as a wikipedian ("get a life" was a very unCIVIL bit of nastineness from an admin doncha think??), I guess, so why should I expect you to respect what a bunch of Injuns in the frozen vastness of the Great White North think they should be called? More and more I understand my native friends' cynicism about academics as an instrument of colonialism, linguistic or otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • " we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works " is very pointedly AGF..... yet I'm a long-time resident of Canada, familiar with aboriginal politics and culture at first hand, a long-time Wikipedian and long-time member of IPNA and WPCANADA and other groups, and you "can't take my word for it". What's your own word worth, Maunus? From the sorts of things you've said to me, not very much. Where are you from again? What knowledge of this people do you have other than about their language? Ever watch Canadian TV or read Canadian publications? From your attitude and and peremptory attitude on these names - "we can't take Skookum1's word for it [that Denesuline is the modern, preferred term" -
Why don't you try to constructively address the issues, instead of ranting and making accusations of cabals? Then we could finally have a decent discussion and work towards something. --JorisvS (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ranting? No, just laying out the details of the cabal's resistance to guidelines not of their liking. I'm the one who was deried as "irrational" and told "get a life" by these turkeys when I did try to constructively address these issues. More than once. Obviously there's an old axe to grind with Kwami, because of his conduct in resisting last year's RMs (which were on the same lines as this one, very exactly the same). WP:DUCK applies to this bunch - "the NCLANG cabal" - and this insistence here on rejecting Denesuline "because we can't take Skookum1's word for it, that's not how Wikipedia works" is just more patronizing, elitist bunk. Why should we take their word for it that "Chipewyan" is the most common term? Kwami never produced googles or fielded an RM on this when he moved it...IMO because he knew it wouldn't go through because of the prevalent modern usage in Canada which he clearly disdains (as with his little bait-and-switch attempt to vandalize the K'omoks title earlier...alright for him to move without discussion, but when I do it he tries to file a dab on the new title and create "FOO people/temp"..... the "rants" here are me laying out the barebones of the subtext and misconduct and lack of procedure....I'm not the problem. Denesuline is the modern usage, Chipewyan like Slavey and Dogrib is an obsolete exonym; not as obviously derisive in origin as the other two but still not preferred by the people themselves as in WP:ETHNICGROUP - and as is now standard in Canadian English, whether wiki-linguists like or understand that or not. Don't want to take my word for it? Search APTN, CBC, CTV and especially the Government of the Northwest Territories, where these people are major component of the polity and culture.....don't call this a rant, I'm just explaining to you some background here, including Kwami's habit of attacking an editor instead of the points raised; to avoid the points raised; which Maunus has done too in no uncertain anti-AGF terms.Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am convinced you act in good faith, and the reason I wont take your word for anything is that you have demonstrated copiously that you dont understand the basics of policies such as WP:V. Ie it is not lack of good faith, but rather that I consider you entirely lacking in competence. I understand you consider that to be elitist. I would reply that writing encyclopedias have always been an elitist project, because knowledge is not democratic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Really, then why are RMs and CfDs decided by totting up "votes" including mistaken ones or ones that are just plain wrong (or, as with what happened on the first Squamish RM, were started by someone with obvious and clear bias against native names). Your group's imposition of a guideline you crafted yourselves without consulting anyone else is, indeed, anything but democratic. Oh but wikipedia's not a democracy, is it? So what is it, a club?Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
COMPETENCE?? Come again? I'm competent in Canadian indigenous matters and Canadian language usage, for one thing; but it's the incompetence of Kwami and Uysvdi that led to this matter, and last year's RMs, and the still-unresolved CfD at Squamish..... But once again, attacking the proponent instead of dealing with the issues presented is a recognizable tactic and I'm tired of being BAITed, which was what Kwami was called on re last year's RMs - in the course of defending his own incompetence. When are you going to start talking about Chipewyan/Denesuline, without referring only to NCL, or are you just going to keep on criticizing and patronizing me here??Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Cabal", "turkeys", "his conduct", "this bunch", "patronizing, elitist bunk". --JorisvS (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
given the turnout from the little club at NCL here, cabal is very valid. And yes, imposing academic/archaic names in lieu of modern self-identification is "patronizing, elitist bunk". As for "his conduct", Kwami's attempt to get around K'omoks back to "Comox people" ("people from the town of Comox" that means in Cdn English) included creating illicit temp-titles and an uncalled for DB placed on that title. His conduct on last year's RMs is a matter of record and he was dressed down for it. Maunus and Uysvdi both have been both insulting and condescending, as also here, and hostile to nearly anything I so; "You're kind and gracious as always" and "get a life" etc.....I try and act from common sense and my knowledge of things, and get personal attacks in return while being accused of them. Your own attempt to add "when possible" to the self-identification passage of NCL added last night by In ict oculi was another example of "moving the goalposts so as to win the game" and dishonest. I was invited to work on NCL, so rather than paraphrase the passage from NCET as In ict oculi has done, and in doing so left out the first two sentences which bear on this discussion, I quoted it wholesale; no doubt one of you will revert that as an undiscussed change even though it's a quote from another guideline, or you will do what Labbattblueboy has done and challenge ETHNICGROUP directly as "invalid" even though it was a lift from the Naming Conventions for Peoples. Do you people even own mirrors and have any capacity at all for self-criticism and admission of wrong or mistaken actions? What you did there is clearly AGF. And like all such discussions, including last year's RMs, resorting to attacking the proponent instead of dealing with the issues is all too typical.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
A "cabal" is a secret plot. A few people who happen to agree with each other and disagree with you is not a "cabal". That edit of mine was honest attempt to improve it and explained at the talk page. There hasn't been any response from you on the talk page and In ictu oculi actually thanked me for it. I'm only looking for a civilized discussion without such forceful words used ad hominem. That isn't at all unreasonable, is it? --JorisvS (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support The primary naming of this people/language is Denesuline in Canada. The Athabaskan-speaking (non-Amerind) Chipewyan people/language is not useful, because the Algonquian-speaking (Amerind) Chippewa for Ojibwe people/language is "most most" common in USA (esp. oldest literature). --Kmoksy (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
From the University of Saskatchewan History of the Denesuliné (Dene) in Northern Saskatchewan comes the following quotation:

"Denesuliné (pronounced as Den-a-sooth-leh-na) or Dene of Northern Saskatchewan were once referred to as Chipewyan or Caribou Eaters (Ethen-eldeli or Et-en-eldili-dene) but they prefer their self-naming term, Denesuliné which means 'Human Beings.' Chipewyan, a term given to the Denesuliné by the Cree during the fur trade era means 'pointed toes.' Chipewyan is the term specific to Denesuliné who reside in the northern boreal forest while Dene or Athapaskan refers to all Dene in Canada."

..... Kayoty 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Before getting too far into things, I have some serious questions whether WP:ETHNICGROUP is even valid. I see no demonstration that it's adoption was ever discussed, and there is certainly no RfC. That being said, The disparity in search results is so great that there is no way to support this move. I limited my search to sources from 2000 onwards as to eliminate sources that often less than kind things to say about aboriginals peoples in Canada. Google Books: Chipewyan -fort -wikipedia 13,000 hits[1], Denesuline -wikipedia 370 hits[2]. The Google ngram doesn't even pick up Denesuline[3]. Google scholar is no better. Denesuline 80 hits[4], Chipewyan -fort 1150 hits[5]. I am happy to give consideration to what a group refers themselves as but it has to at least be close to supersede WP:COMMONNAME, and here it's not even close.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • That you would challenge ETHNICGROUP's validity is not surprising but disingenuous; the initial version of it including the passage in question was lifted from WP:Naming conventions (people) wholesale by Onceinawhile, saying "New article as proposed - text moved from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people))" on March 13 2012; or are you going to then also say that you think NCP is also not valid?? And Google Scholar is full of cites from (a) past times and (b) academics from other places who are unaware of the last twenty-thirty years of Canadian indigenous history and the reasons why native endonyms were created by the peoples in question, and how Canadian media etc have brought them into current use. Unless you limit your google scholar results to post-1990 and to Canada only, what someone publishing in the US or UK is very irrelevant to the modern on-the-ground reality.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Not trying to focus on WP:ETHNICGROUP but it was clearly not a wholesale lift. Portions like "Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group" seems to have been omitted in the move ([6] vs [7]). I am stating that I question whether WP:ETHNICGROUP is an accepted guideline and is better classified as a proposed guideline as I can't find a discussion where it's creation was generally agreed to. It's not like it's a guideline that has been cited in past discussion, I've only found a single article for deletion discussion where in was expressly cited(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black fashion models). Discounting sources by geography is wholly inappropriate. When it comes right down to it reliable English sources demonstrate that the current name is somewhere between 14 and 35 times more common in contemporary sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • As observed by someone else here, using foreign/US sources would mean that "Ojibwe should be Chippewa per your logic...that Nuu-chah-nulth should be Nootka, and Kwakwaka'wakw should be Kwakiutl, Kainai would be Blood people and so on. And re your plaint that ETHNICGROUP has only been used re one article (until now), that's not that guideline's fault, but as we have seen here and in other RMs refusal by the NCL crowd to admit to its existence; now you deny its validity even though it was created by consensus and was discussed on NCP and WPEG; and yes, that passage about most common in English being used needs amendment re self-identification....or we would see Sto:lo become Fraser River Indians and other reversions to archaic usages, some of them quite unpalatable. Canadian English usage applies to Canadian articles....very pointedly, which is also partly why St'at'imc, Ktunaxa, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Tsilhqot'in and Dakelh are back where they belong - not where google searches including other country-publications indicate they "should" be (supposedly). I reject the notion that you have just field that dominant results from (a) other countries and (b) bygone eras should outweigh Canadian English usages. Completely reject it as just being more typical wiki-elitism "Wiki knows best" about RS, even when the RS are out of date (Handbook of American Indians, Catholic Encyclopedia etc). Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Here is the same results looking at only sources since 2010. Google Books: Chipewyan -fort -wikipedia 3710 hits[8] Denesuline -wikipedia[9]. Google Scholar: Chipewyan -fort 386 hits[10] Denesuline 32 hits[11]. Still no less than a factor of 10 difference between them. I don't know of any policy wherein you can limit sources to just Canadian English. You can't discount an American source just because you don't like their spelling.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Spelling??? No Chipewyan is not spelled anything like Denesuline; and discounting American sources on Canadian topics is a regular part of the drill; otherwise Inuit would be Eskimo and Fraser River would be Frazier River. Unless you're referring to Ojibwe/Chippewa in which case that'll be a hard-fought RM and Canadian/FN usages would be brought to the fore as they should also be respected here. If academics aren't keeping up on modern nomenclature, it's a sad comment on their field of study; that they don't even talk to the people they write about, in other words. And if we include UK usages in terms of FN/NA peoples, and probably also India as well, then Red Indians would replace Indigenous peoples of North America. That is not acceptable, nor is this name. You may discount the "validity" of WP:ETHNICGROUP because it hasn't passed RfC, but NCP where it was lifted from did, and what it says about respecting what peoples call themselves is much more enlightened and less blinkered on than NCLANG (until its amendment by In ict oculi last night, despite JorisV's attempt to add "when possible" to avoiding derogatory names; I removed that and quoted the whole passage, not just the derogatory-names sentence.Skookum1 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names ("Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."). There is also the associated guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), which says in part "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title."
I just copied this remark from another move. "The idea that there can be no discussion unless at a central location to cover all languages and people is not necessary as there are already policies and guidelines to cover this. Also there has been opposition on Wikipedia to bulk nominations. It is quite obvious that some people and languages share, along with other possible targets, a common name that the only way to deal with them is to have them at "foo language" and "foo people". English is one of these that comes to mind. In this case the language and people use different names." CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose at least until a proper discussion can be held with the nominator. See also my comment below. --JorisvS (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Reply Per WP:AGF and WP:NPAand WP:CIVIL, you should withdraw that comment, which is demeaning and condescending, since I *am* here, as are others who see my point and the relevant guidelines. If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the "support" votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me; and discussions are supposed to be about topics and issues; not editors; Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds; I hear all kinds of NPA and AGF whines, but get NPA and AGF treatment all the time, especially from NCL fans. All five or so of them. Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues, not WP:BAIT the proponent, or suggest he's not capable of "proper discussion".....it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Exactly! The discussion should be about content, not editors! I'm only opposing because I need a decent overview of the arguments in favor to support the move. But I'm not getting those, despite several requests. --JorisvS (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK. Denesuline is the common name. As such it complies with the policy, Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and with the guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Is that OK as an overview of why this should be moved? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Denesuline call themselves Denesuline. Why would we use any other name other than what a group have themselves chosen? Kayoty (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
My point exactly, but there are those who maintain WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification - and CANSTYLE - are inferior to global usages still in use in other countries and primarily within one field only - linguistics. Similar denunciations of what the peoples call themselves have been rather rudely dismissed, ignoring that guideline, in various other similar cases; many were moved by RM back to the native forms e.g. St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Ktunaxa and others, though those precedents are likewise being ignored.Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Kayoty. The French call themselved "Français", the German "Deutsch", and the Russians call themselves "русские", why wouldn't we use those forms too? --JorisvS (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comparing terms in other languages is not the same; as observed by CambridgeBayWeather (who lives in Nunavut), "Denesuline" IS the common term in English and is a word in English. Français, Deutsch and русские are NOT.Skookum1 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Neutral to "Denesuline people", oppose to "Denesuline". I don't mind using "Denesuline", because that is English-pronounceable, as long as it's common enough in English. When native forms are not English-pronounceable, then people not already familiar with the correct pronunciation are lost, and sometimes even see outright gibberish (as in, for example, Skwxwú7mesh). --JorisvS (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please contain your prejudices; Skwxwu7mesh is no more "gibberish" than Mi'kmaq, St'at'imc, Kwakwaka'wakw or Sto:lo or countless other examples. Your ignorance of how to pronounce "Denesuline" is irrelevant; pronounce Sheshatshiu for me.....you can't unless you look at that article, yet it's a title and there can be no other; also with Kelowna no doubt and other more "English" names (that's originally Syilx'tsn/Okanagan though) there are many titles that are not intuitive pronunciations. Then there's Lax Kw'alaams and Gingolx, also unpronounceable to you, no doubt, but official names and also wiki-articles; and don't toss back OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the comeback is PRECEDENT. The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing and very contrary to the original spirit of the naming conventions in IPNA and also in WPCANADA.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's not prejudice, I can pronounce just about anything you present to me, as long as I have a pronunciation key, but I don't expect the same from others. People, myself included, would start pronouncing Sheshatshiu with a [ʃ] in the middle, not a [h]. How are they supposed to know that <sh>, which is always pronounced as [ʃ] except when there is an intervening morpheme boundary (when it is <s>+<h>), should now suddenly be pronounced [h]? And that is then still English-pronounceable. With "gibberish" I mean a 'basically random combination of characters' for the average reader here. --JorisvS (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Man, you didn't even get the point of that pronunciation explanation and I didn't put it in IPA; "eh" is not meant to have an "h" sound but "eh" is meant to indicate the soft/short "e" sound as a in shed. You probably think the t's are pronounced, and you don't have a clue about the rhythm of the name. And yes, calling Skwxwu7mesh "gibberish" is very pointedly prejudiced and not slightly anti-native.Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Here's a few more for you to try and wrap your tongue around, which are also official, legal names:
No doubt you will complain that these are "gibberish" too, and should be moved back to their old anglicisms? Not gonna happen, they're official names.
Other titles that probably offend your very evident and openly declared prejudices against such titles are Laxgibuu, Laxsgiik, Delgamuukw, Guujaaw, Gispaxlo'ots and countless others. Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You claim on your userpage to be an "inclusionist", is see no signs of inclusionism in all your responses of this kind; rather both exclusionism and exceptionalism.Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
What does that mean, to be official? Is the word "German" official, or is it really "Deutsch"? I don't prefer names that offend people, but sometimes there is no English-pronounceable form that is not offensive to someone. Compare "Serbo-Croatian"; the very thought of a common language of Croatia, Serbia etc. offends quite a number of natives, yet we do have an article about this common language and call it Serbo-Croatian instead of euphemisms like Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. I'm an inclusionist in that I prefer more articles about distinct topics rather than less, not in 'anything flies' or '(blindly) follow locals'. Can you understand why I'm reluctant using forms that non-specialists or non-locals are lost to pronounce? --JorisvS (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's a matter of COMMONNAME and universality. The Germans may want to be called Deutscher in English, but until people actually call them that, we're not going to. Turkey has tried changing their English name to Türkiye, to no avail. If you can demonstrate that Denesuline has replaced Chipewyan as the common name in English, then the article should be moved. If you cannot, it should not be moved. Simple. Your being outraged about it is of no interest. — kwami (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's your repetitive refusal to recognize Canadian English as being a valid version of English and your meaningless comparisons to obscure names-in-English claims that are both uncited and not official. I have never heard of either such proposal, and such usage is not evident in media use that I know of; old lingo had "Dutchman" as the main term for Germans and all other Europeans other than the French, ie. including the actual Dutch and Bohemians and Slavs; "Swedes" including Norwegians (Norway being ruled by Sweden at the time though). Your refusal also to heed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification is more than questionable......and always tiresome; and describing valid points as "outrage" because the length of them intimidates you is yet another character-stab like you are way too fond of doing.Skookum1 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
That link does not work. I don't refuse recognize Canadian English as a valid form of English, it is! What I am saying is that we should keep in mind that this is not the Canadian English Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia, and therefore we should also take non-Canadian readers into account. I hope you will you finally respond to my argument. --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have completed the link name, it will work now. And "this is not the Canadian English Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia" flies in the face of CANSTYLE and more; national varieties of English, including lexicon (of which nomenclature is a part), are covered and respected by MOS and other guidelines; non-Canadians readers can use the names they know and discover the modern (and ancient) name of this group and others by where the redirects will take them. Your argument was made by others (including a certain someone) in the RMs at St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Ktunaxa, Nlaka'pamux, and Tsilhqot'in and was rejected by others than myself; if other parts of the world still call [[Haida Gwaii] the Queen Charlotte Islands, that doesn't justify imposing their out-of-date uses with the correct modern one (that it happens to be official is of course another layer on that, as also with the names Gingolx vs Kincolith and Lagalts'ap, I think it is, for Greenville and other names now legally changed by the Nisga'a Treaty.Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: It appears to me (based on a couple of library searches but no previous knowledge) that the terms "Chipewyan" and "Denesuline"/"Dene Suline" are about equally common. As I say, I have no knowledge of the community, but in groups I do know it's not unusual for some individuals or groups to reject exonyms, while others use or even prefer them. Either name without the word "people" would seem to risk confusion with Dënesųłiné language, though. Cnilep (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
reply Why "confusing"? There would be a hatnote at Denesuline to the language page; per TITLE there is no need to dab secondary topics and if there is a primary title others are derivatives of, there is no need to dab the primary title. I reject the false premise advanced by those who wrote NCL that "people and language are equally primarytopics" as ORIGINALRESEARCH and not borne out by search results, and know that ethnographers and ethnologists would disagree. There is no possible confusion with Denesuline just as there is no possible confusion at St'at'imc or Tsilhqot'in and similar; stand-alone titles still abound despite the persistent efforts to needlessly add "people" to them; in all cases mentioned including this one, the morpheme for "people" is included in the title (Dene, -imc and -t'in).Skookum1 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Further reply to Chilep Please note Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision and User:CambridgeBayWeather's comments at Talk:Ojibwe people#Requested move and similar. The guidelines that the first oppose vote claims need discussion already exist. `
That part of WP:NCL was inspired to avoid the minefield of determining which is the primary and which the secondary use for each people+language combination, and instead use a straightforward, clear, and symmetric naming scheme throughout. In English there is no morpheme in those terms terms that indicates "people", only in those languages themselves. --JorisvS (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is no "minefield" re people/language except by your own invention/assertions, the stats are very clear, yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge them and continue with your equivocations and obstruction of needed changes; I see [[User:Cuchulainn], who was part of the "old consensus", has already taken action on several of these needless "people" dabs today, as have others in various now-closed RMs. When are you going to wake up and admit that you can smell the coffee?Skookum1 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Denesuline" includes the morpheme, well-known in English (in Canada if not elsewhere) for "people", i.e. "Dene"; the redundancy of "FOO people" where FOO includes such morphemes is one of the many reasons that stand-alone native self-identification for ethnographic article titles was mandated and put in practice by the "old consensus", as is still evident in category names (there is no Denesuline category yet though; this item is in Category:Dene peoples which is explicity titled differently from "Category:Dene people" for "people who are Dene". It's also evident by now that NCL did not properly address other guidelines, until the inclusion of the table from NCET which was originally on NCP by In ict oculi recently, and the standing consensus on the use of undisambiguated native names was ignored if even it was ever realized despite innumerable examples; that stand-alone native-name usage was restored by RM after undiscussed NCL-motivated moves to archaic/obsolete titles including "people" re Ktunaxa, St'at'imc, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc]] and Nlaka'pamux last year, with Dakelh being recently corrected (partly because "Carrier people" is inaccurate as the closer at that RM observed). NCL's mandate is for language articles and should not have been applied to non-language articles without consulting other guidelines. That many TWODAB pages were created as well as adding unnecessary disambiguation to the main ethno title is yet another flaw in that guideline's narrow, linguistics-oriented parameters and its sweeping over-application to ethno article titles.Skookum1 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
That's the problem: You're reading these terms in these peoples' languages, not as in English. In English these are monomorphemic terms, and so there is no morpheme meaning "people" in English. Therefore, there is no redundancy. This was actually discussed at WT:NCL in the discussion prior to the vote that led to prefering explicit dabs for people–language pairs. --JorisvS (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Denesuline is word in English, and Dene is known in Canada to mean "people" same as "Inuit" is. NCL was discussed by a whole FIVE people in closed discussion with no participation from other guideline pages; it has been shown to be flawed guideline and has no right to lord it over non-language articles without reference to those other guidelines; Kwami's attempt to shut down discussion on item-by-item RMs and call for a general discussion is laughable, as others have pointed out all the relevant guidelines exist already which put the lie to the item-by-item-without-even-reading-the-damned-thing invocations of speedy moves based on your pet guideline across thousands of articles. The decision to omit "people" (and "nation" and "tribe" and other terms) with all its various issues from the native endonyms in the early days of Wikipedia was well established for five-six years until NCL ignored that convention, and all other guidelines, and wreaked havoc across what had been stable titles; there's a reason why the category names, which matched the original article titles until your lot came along with your guideline-cum-wrecking ball, but I know that you don't care about anything other than NCL - shown here again by your insistence that it is relevant on people articles which it is not (NCP/NCET are, as is TITLE/PRECISION). As for this bit about morphemes in other languages, that didn't stop kwami from making St'at'imcets into St'at'imc language saying "redundant"

in the course of his unilateral and disruptive move of both St'at'imc titles without discussion. You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies. The "old consensus" saw fit to use names like Haida, Tsimshian, Gitxsan, St'at'imc, Denesuline, Mi'kmaq without any ambiguous disambiguation at all for reasons that are clearly beyond your very narrow POV to fathom or the very narrow purview of NCL to admit to. NCL is bunk, point blank. The old consensus made sense for a host of reasons, including "most common usage" i.e. that native-endonyms without any dab at all were the way to go, and that language-names when present in English (like St'at'imcets and Kwak'wala and Halkomelem that are rarely used with "language" appended to them) shoudl be teh same in Wikipedia. Many of your group's changes e.g. Inuvialuk people are/were also rank ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Y'all should have read other guidelined and looked at existing article titles before presuming to write, all five of you, your own guideline ignoring everyone else. Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"is known in Canada to mean "people"". Aside from the fact that this is not the Canadian Wikipedia...
So maybe there are things wrong with it. Please come to WT:NCL so we can discuss changes to it. We shouldn't keep a flawed guideline in its current form, should we? --JorisvS (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
actually this is Canadian Wikipedia per {{Canadian English}} and that's another principle you are not just ignoring but pretending is wrong or not relevant, when it's your pet guideline and your knee-jerk resistance to what others (not just me are saying) is what is not relevant..Skookum1 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Per that template, might as well quote it; I'm adding it to this page and to others under dispute but quoting it here " Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." Chipewyan is seen as an offensive exonym, which is proscribed by TITLE and the Ethnicity, race and gender passage of MOS....and should be recognized simply from WP:COMMONSENSE.Skookum1 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Which you just added, BTW (but that's fine). But the point of that template is to indicate which spelling and words that are understood by speakers of other Englishes are used. That doesn't make this "the Canadian Wikipedia". This is, and will remain, the English Wikipedia, which is meant not just for Canadians, but for everyone who speaks English. (Re)read my comments above and see that I don't oppose changing Chipewyan to Denesuline. --JorisvS (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I added it because it should have been here and on all Canadian articles all along, given the number of ignorant comments about how Canadian English is irrelevant to global usage; this is a Canadian Wikipedia article that is part of English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia guidelines mandate that National Varieties of English be respected in articles about things in those countries. But I already know you ignore guidelines that are inconvenient to you and wantonly misinterpret them willynilly to suit your agenda; your rationalization about this is irrelevant nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
And since you either overlooked it or chose not to address it by claiming it's only about punctuation and spelling, let me highlight this line for you some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other varieties of English. .Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I commented specifically on that by saying "that are understood by speakers of other Englishes". This is not a Canadian Wikipedia article, but an English Wikipedia article about a Canadian subject. Do you understand the difference? It's fine to use Canadian English, as long as it can be understood by non-Canadians. --JorisvS (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Metis" and "Kwakwaka'wakw" and "Anishinaabe" adn even "First Nations" have to be explained to speakers of other Englishes too, never mind Tli Cho, Gwich'in and countless others. Non-Canadians can understand if they'd take the time to read the article with the correct titles not the obsolete derisives and misnomers still too popular with academics who insist that Wikipedia should entrench the past, and that normal usages in Canada should not be recognized as part of English - which is really what you are saying. The template is very clear about "terms [which] may differ from other varieties of English" and this is one of those terms, like the others mentioned. Claiming global usage when stats don't even support the usages you claim are "global" is poppycock; if archaic sources and works citing and using terms used in those archaic sources are still prevalent in teh rest of the world, those citations should have no right to lord themselves over Canadian English and tell us that we can't use our own terms on topics about our own country. We have 1/10th the population of the US and maybe 1/3 the population of the UK, both countries havbing many more publishing houses and universities than we do, proportionately and numerically, and even then citations and view stats don't outweigh the Canadian usages to favour "other Englishes"; Claiming that foreign usages are what Wikipedia should use on Canadian titles is both parochial rubbish and also linguistic colonialism.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comment:....The important issue is changing Chipewyan to Denesuline. "People" can be added at a later date if necessary. Kayoty (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irrational close

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

"This outcome will be disappointing to those who support using the names preferred by the people themselves, and I sympathise with that view. However, as a tertiary publication, Wikipedia follows the usage in reliable sources rather than leading change. That inevitably means that our nomenclature will sometimes lag behind popular usage."

Really? Because I seem to remember this feces-flinging festival of a discussion back in October... what was the crux of that? MOS:IDENTITY. We identify people based on what THEY want, no matter what the sources claim, since they are possibly outdated. But I guess that just applies to the squeaky wheel of LGBT groups, huh? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The closure exactly follows MOS:IDENTITY. There's a big difference between calling an individual "he" or "she" based on their identity, since every English speaker is familiar with both pronouns, and calling a nation by a name that few readers have ever heard. I suspect that if a person demanded to be referred to by Spivak pronouns, they might get pushback from editors, IDENTITY or not. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
It went beyond pronouns and it results in BLP articles changing names (getting moved) within an hour of a person announcing that. I fail to see why the policy can be held to one standard for one community of people, but yet to a different standard for another community. The name preferred by the people should be used, no matter what other sources say. Same arguments used in the Bradley Manning debate ad nauseam. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
So you think we should rename "German people" to "Deutsche volk" and "French people" to "Peuple français"? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Apples and oranges; we do not use "Duetsche Volk" (German nouns are capitalized, if you were unaware of that) or "Peuple français" in English; Denesuline like Mi'kmaq and St'at'imc and Kwakwaka'wakw and similar *IS* used in English. Your comment is as specious as are so many others, and point to evasion and is just a red herring.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The editor who started this thread should consult a dictionary about the meaning of the word "irrational". A line of reasoning with which you disagree is not the same thing as the absence of rationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A line of reasoning which sets aside guidelines (Self-identification, including not using derogatory exonyms) and POLICY (TITLE/CONCISION/PRECISENESS) is highly unreasonable and very illogical and clearly biased - and is a demonstration of your inability to decide anything rationally when your personal bias against the nominator is so clearly on display.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Since we have accepted Tłı̨chǫ over Dogrib people, Sahtu over North Slavey and so on and so on, I think to suddenly not accept Denesuline over Chipewyan people seems out of the ordinary.-- Kayoty (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
WP:CONSISTENCY has been regularly ignored, or set aside or otherwise rationalized away, in the course of closes like this one. And re invoking COMMONNAME, it's clear that not all of that guideline's points were addressed (or even read?) by the closer, see User_talk:Skookum1/TheOldConsensus#UCN_.2F_COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." i.e. that numerical counts of sources are not relevant when a name is inaccurate; that section might as well add, though it's elsewhere in the guidelines, when a "most common usage" (here by an underwhelming margin) is also derisive or derogatory in nature, which is indeed the case with "Chipewyan", as its exonymic etymology demonstrates. CONSISTENCY was a cornerstone of the "old consensus" that has emerged in the bulk of RMs other than "this group" of them, which were not closed by the same closers as the mass of others, and has been devalued in favour of a misreading of COMMONNAME. This title is derogatory in origin, and though still official with some bands in Alberta, and re the official languages of the Northwest Territories, still in legal use; but it is out of line with parallel titles e.g. Dane-zaa, Tsuu Tina, and countless others to be found in Category:First Nations and its categories. ****The link provided above goes to a summary of the "old" consensus, which was never codified formally before people drifted away; points of it are currently under filibuster at WP:NCL, which was revised in Feb 2011 to mandate compulsory addition of "people" and "language" to titles which do not and did not need it; attempts to address the points of TITLE and NCDAB and other points above are being confounded by the author of the passage in question, who also was an adamant opponent of all these RMs, and the first to oppose them per the copy-pasted vote in the RM above and in copy-pasted identical votes across dozens of others.@CJLippert:Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • The the juxtaposition of the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case as some kind validation for this, that's so far out of the ballpark and unrelated to names for indigenous people I don't really have a word for how UNDUE it is.Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • the Squamish titles are also out of CONSISTENCY with their categories, whether it's Category:First Nations in British Columbia or Category:District municipalities in British Columbia, per the MOSTCOMMON use and PRIMARYTOPIC of that name being the District of Squamish (=the town). Similar are the closes for Comox, Bella Bella and Bella Coola and certain others where the PRIMARYTOPIC/MAINUSE *and* COMMONNAME were ignored in favour of unsubstantiated claims that the parallel primarytopics are the people-names that are no longer in use; in both case the peoples use those two terms for the towns where they are located, not for themselves. The obvious meaning of that was discounted and set aside and "no consensus" declared despite ample provisions of view stats and googles......and credit was given to UNDUE comments by oppose votes that the small population of these places somehow meant they were insignificant, despite in fact being the main regional centres in otherwise mostly-empty regions; this RM wasn't the only one that was irrational or where guidelines were used out of context, or not in their full context. All these will have to be revisited by more informed debates in future, but any such action right now would likely be pronounced "disruptive" as upsetting an already-overturned applecart. @Floydian:, @Themightyquill:, @The Interior:Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Kayoty: worth noting that among other parallels here, since you mention Tlicho, is that was moved on Jun 28, 2011, by the same editor who moved this to Chipewyan, with edit comment saying, incorrectly, "per English and CommonName; lit. translation" ..... "Dogrib" is *NOT* a "literal translation" of "Tłı̨chǫ". The "ENGLISH" excuse shows up in native-name discussions/moves all the time, part of that {{systemic bias}} noted on the IPNA talkpage and quite at odds with the current state of Canadian English. It appears that more than a "dictionary" is needed when evaluating "irrational" and also "truth". The same editor also moved other indigenous-preferred endonyms to older/obsolete/disused names, as noted repeatedly re St'at'imc], Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa, Tsilhqot'in, Shishalh, Dakelh, Wuikinuxv and more; all examples of the CONSISTENCY which this close/r ignored and/or discounted, or was just oblivious to. rather than acknowledging Floydian's issues with the close, she did not take the opportunity to change her mistaken close to "do the right thing" as someone quipped about another such endonym RM (which was closed correctly, not wantonly with disregard to modern reality or self-identification as was the case here), she threw a jab about consulting a dictionary about t he meaning of "irrational"; {{Floydian}} was right, as are you and I and others. Being told to take it to move review, where citations and issues/guidelines are not even at issue, only relisting something, is fine and dandy to say, but WP:SHRUG should not be a response to people who dispute a bad close; nor should vilifying them and complaining about their "verbosity" in t he course of an incredibly long close with much "irrationalization" going on. I'm at risk of provoking yet another round of official harassment for speaking my mind, but this, Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh, Tsuu Tina/Sarcee language and Slavey and more are all issues that IPNA and Canadian Wikipedians are going to have to wrestle with in future, as someone unfamiliar with the ground, who was unaware of the surrounding contexts, and been dismissive and even hostile to those who criticize bad decisions, was who closed this, rather than Cuchullain or BDD or Xoloz who closed the bulk of the parallel RMs correctly and rationally. "go consult a dictionary" is just arrogance and smuggery from someone who needs to read up and get with the times, rather than make excuses as to how Wikipedia should remain behind the times because out-of-date sources outnumber (marginally) more modern ones.Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The original documenters of these people did not record their endonym properly. Their name for themselves is not one word - Chipewyan. It is a compound word: Chi-Pew-Yan (pronounced chee-pyoo-yan) Odonanmarg (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chipewyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chipewyan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chipewyan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dënesųłı̨ne

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm noting the RM discussions above, and they seem to have this page titled as "Chipewyan". I'm not exactly sure what the idea is behind this edit and this edit, but if an explanation were to be provided it might make a bit more sense as to why we're not using the article title to name a group. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chipewyan&oldid=1206666224"