Talk:Haisla people

Untitled

Why doesn't this redirect to Haisla language, rather than the other way around? --Whimemsz 17:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Duh, because the people are more reelvant than their language; yours appears to be an old post, the articles have long since been split.Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kitamaat/Kitamat name

By the look of it, it's Smalgyax (Tsimshian) rather than Haisla....but what's it mean?Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It means "people of the snow" or "valley of the snow." From what I remember hearing, legend has it that when European explorers were exploring this area they had Tsimshain guides with them and asked the Tsimshian what this place was called and they said Kitamaat, which was their word for it. They must have assumed that was what we called it too and they didn't verify it with us so the name stuck. The actual Haisla name for the reserve is C'imo'ca (pronounced tsee-MOTE-sah) which means "snag beach." Terry Baggio (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kitamaat redirect

This currently goes to Kitimat, British Columbia, and shouldn't; I don't know enough to turn the redirect into at least a stub; can you help with some content about the village, Terry?Skookum1 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll write it up in a "raw stub" format as done already for some other people, a foundation/format to work on/up; generally there's leeway with band/nation articles about WP:COI and WP:AUTO because of hte nature of hte source, but ideally all information provided should be in a verifiable source, preferably linkable but otherwise cited properly etc. user:OldManRivers has managed to dig up material/refs on lots of close detail on the Skwxwu7mesh that's not necessarily online, though (see all of Category:Skwxwu7mesh and its subcats; to give ou an idea of the possible range of article content; likewise Categry;Kwakwaka'wakw where you'll also find a lot of those raw stubs for various peoples/places), likewise Category:Haisla for other extant articles. Please note the difference between Haisla and Haisla Nation or Haisla First Nation - whatever the formal title used by the combined bands....unless that's not how it works; it's the Haisla-Heitlsuk-Oowekyala Tribal Council, isn't it? something like that in a different order I guess; Or is Nuxalk also in there, despite the ethnographic divide. I'm not clear on the [Xaixai]]s and maybe that's another article you could help with; the Central/North Coast is a mystery to me relative to southern parts; vanished villages and groups should all get articles, if the information is out there. Anyway, welcome, I hope you saw the edit comments about reply-format with the colon....and remember not to select/delete other people's posts :-), it's bad wikiquette (unless it's vulgar/offensive or an "attack edit" etc). Wikipedia's rich ground for "indigenous internet space", a conensually developed resource combining information from all known material - ultimately; but nobody "owns" a page (again WP:COI and WP:AUTO....also pls note WP:BIO re any biography articles you may start/work on). Anyway you don't have to start a new section to reply, just use the colon format/ asterisk-bullets are more for sequential points; quotes from the page or a source in italics. Citation format I've never learned, but others are around as models, or other editors will tidy 'em up sooner or later. Anyway thanks for being out there on this part of BC wikidom; any locality or historical item in the area, FN or otherwise, please add as available, or as by your interest. g'nite.Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass this on

To the Kitamaat band office and let them decide what they would want added to it. Terry Baggio (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, deleted you message. Didn't know that was going to happen, still figuring out the discussion page format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Baggio (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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, so default to the current title which has been stable since June 2011.
There appears to be a parallel dispute over whether the newly-created guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) carries consensus support. It would be better for all concerned to open an RFC to resolve the question of how to title articles about peoples, ethnicities are tribes. This will not be resolved either by a flood of similar RM discussions or by creating contested guidelines. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Haisla people → Haisla – target page is dab first moved to redirect by JorisV on June 8, 2011 then made into a dab page by same editor on the same day with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. We have policy that the people should go at "XXX people" and the language at "XXX language", with "XXX" being a dab page, see WP:NCL. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"We" is not all of Wikipedia obviously, it's you, Kwami and Uysvdi and other NCL regulars concocting a bad guideline (which is not a "policy") that is in conflict with various others. WP:UNDAB has been ignored by all of you as has what WP:CRITERIA and WP:ETHNICGROUP have to say about this. The smugness in your suggestion for me to "try to change the guideline" in in a space dominated by the same small cabal of users, two - no three - have engaged in insults against me is beyond smug to the point of ridiculousness; an RfC may be required to change that guideline, as it's clear I'm shut out of any process involving that group of editors, who have been relentlessly contrarian and hostile to anything upsetting the applecart they carefully concocted to please themselves..and no one else.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 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) 12:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 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 02:34, 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). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 March 2014‎
• View stats
  • "Haisla people" was viewed 540 times in March 2014
  • "Haisla language" was viewed 543 times in March 2014
  • the "Haisla" disambiguation page was viewed 134 times in March 2014
  • "Haisla Nation" was viewed 394 times in March 2014
  • While the language article was viewed slightly more than the people article, the views of the Haisla Nation article IMO count towards the "people" meaning, partly because some "Haisla" pipes on "what links here" are to the government title; other "what links here" are direct mentions of the government. There is no way links to the Haisla Nation article can be construed as pointing to the language meaning.
  • the Haisla dab page is a three-item dab page, where the "Haisla Nation" title is included, which is not a proper dab as not being a standalone term and related directly to the people, rather than the language; as with other three dab pages of this kind, it is really "two and a half dabs".
• Google results
  • "Haisla people" excluding "wikipedia" yields c. 15,000 results, further excluding "language" there are about 11,600 results
  • "Haisla language" yields about 4,110 results
  • "Haisla Nation yields 21,400 results, excluding "language" there are about 11,000 results
  • "Haisla tribe" yields 765 results, excluding "language" there are 646 results]
  • "Haisla Indians" yields 5,850 results, excluding "language" there are 4,160 results
  • Google Books results are:
    • 301 results for "Haisla Nation" excluding "wikipedia" and "language"
    • "Haisla people" yields 181 results, excluding "language" and "wikipedia"
    • "Haisla language" yields 314 results
    • "Haisla Indians" yields 100 results excluding "language"; including "language" there are 310 results
  • Google News results are:
    • no results for "Haisla language"; a suggested link to a Bellingham Herald" article where the two terms occur separately and references to "Haisla" are "Haisla culture", "Haisla people" and "Haisla heritage"
    • there are 2 results for "Haisla people", excluding wikipedia and including the Bellingham Herald article mentioned above
    • "Haisla Nation" yields 4 results, excluding "wikipedia" and the same results apply excluding "language"
  • Google Scholar results are:
    • 90 results for "Haisla people" with 25 results when excluding "language"
    • "Haisla language" yields about 56 results
    • "Haisla Nation" yields 150 results. Curiously, excluding "language" there are 62 results
    • for "Haisla Indians" there are 9 results, excluding language there are 3 results
    • "Haisla tribe" yields 10 results, excluding "language" there are 3 results]
  • Noting that the general readership is of more relevance to the title per TITLE and other guidelines, the Google Scholar results which favour the language should be discounted; it would appear ethnography does not write as much about these people as do linguists. "Haisla tribe" and "Haisla Indians" may be construed as referring to the people; in some uses it appears "Haisla tribe" is a reference to the government.Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Please note the ambiguity with the subcategory Category:Haisla people for "people who are Haisla". This is a common ambiguity across many other related RMs and the question of this ambiguity is one of the main problems with "FOO people" ethnographic/people article titles. The main category for the ethnographic group is Category:Haisla, which matched the original title of this article.Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to have been a ton of these requests over the past month, and there should probably be some centralized discussion somewhere (maybe there was, and I missed it?). Anyway, so long as we have English language and English people etc., we should follow the same pattern for all such names to eliminate ambiguity. Since Haisla language exists as an article, this shouldn't be moved. SnowFire (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some 80-90% of those RMs have passed/moved; and yes there was a centralized discussions somewhere, it's called TITLE and look up PRECISION and CONCISENESS there, and note the guidelines cited by CambridgeBayWeather - Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). And also this closer's comment on Talk:Northern Tutchone#Requested move "As with other recent moves, we appear to have an emerging consensus that the people are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be at the base name. Cúchullain " THAT consensus has formed with reference to the major guidelines, not with reference to a single flawed guideline, the writing of which ignored all those guidelines. Also, these have to be done on a case-by-case basis because of PRIMARYTOPIC issues as with Muscogee people vs. what else on Muscogee; in this case, there are no other uses of Haisla than Haisla language and Haisla Nation, which are not PRIMARYTOPICS; the latter is the government article, and is a two-word item not eligible for PRIMARYTOPIC vs the standalone Haida. The view stats google searches above indicate that the language isn't, either - but it's also not by definition, the people - who are a living people, not on a museum shelf - are who the English language name for their language (which in their language is called Henaksiala) is named for; therefore a secondary topic and, also, a two-word dab. The view stats aren't as compelling as the googles in this case but those are in-wiki stats, not from the world at large, and are dependent on where and how the incoming links are located and configured. The googles show the "most common use" for the standalone term "Haisla" is the people.Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haisla people. 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/20070723085807/http://www.nanakila.ca/pole.html to http://www.nanakila.ca/pole.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) 01:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)