Talk:Chinookan peoples

chinook cultural clothes

Clothing was different for Chinookan groups. People near the mouth wore little to no clothing. Chinookan people in the Columbia River gorge wore something different.

They wore them to wedding,ceremonies.deaths.and births.Men wore long baggy pants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.181.88 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

They weren't dresses, they were tunics, which was common wear in most socieities for thousands of years; the fabric was the cambium of the red cedar, the garment was called a kalakwhattie, Kalahkwahtie etc (var. spelligns). A dress, for one thing, is tailored; a tunic doesn 't have to be....Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change?

This page needs major edits. It conflates Chinookan Peoples, with the Chinook Indian Nation. Chinookan Peoples include MANY GROUPS of Chinookan-language-speaking people indigenous to the Columbia River’s Lower and Middle sections. ColumbiaWP

This should be Chinookan Peoples and not confused the Chinook (tribe) or the "Chinookan" l, which should go to a language page (Chinookan language?).Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! This page is confusing. The authors do not seem to know the difference between Chinookan-speaking people and the Chinook Tribe. Chinookan Peoples include MANY GROUPS of Chinookan-language-speaking people indigenous to the Columbia River’s Lower and Middle sections. River-tilicum

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinook people → Chinookan peoples – this is not one people but a group of them, not all of them calling themselves "Chinook". Chinook peoples was available but "Chinookan" is more viable because of that self-identification issue e.g. Clatsop, Cathlamet etc. As with other "FOO people" titles, the complication with "people who are FOO" needs addressing, pluralization is the obvious, necessary solution. Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Chinookan peoples is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinookan peoples. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000622/http://www.indianz.com/TribalLaw/Focus/showreview.asp?ID=1222001 to http://www.indianz.com/TribalLaw/Focus/showreview.asp?ID=1222001
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130119021749/http://www.chinookobserver.com/free/president-obama-hillary-clinton-pay-tribute-to-slain-chinook-member/article_5264d608-fe9c-11e1-a9de-0019bb2963f4.html to http://www.chinookobserver.com/free/president-obama-hillary-clinton-pay-tribute-to-slain-chinook-member/article_5264d608-fe9c-11e1-a9de-0019bb2963f4.html

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) 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinookan peoples vs. Peoples of the lower Columbia

Why is the article name different from the name given in the first sentence to describe this group?

Also the article says "However, it is not appropriate to use the term "Chinookan." This term is a misnomer invented by white people to describe a wide variety of peoples who have inhabited the Lower Columbia but aren't connected as a single group of people." If that is the case, should we rename the article entirely?

Overall I found this to be confusing.

-KaJunl (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That sentence also seems rather inconsistent with Wikipedia's academic tone. "Invented by white people" is a strange choice of phrase, and it seems as though this would be better served to a social or naming section. --Eckmann88 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Chinookan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)