Talk:Nuwhaha

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Nuwhaha people, despite sometimes being erroneously known as the "Upper Samish", do not speak the Samish language?

• Source: -"They did not speak Samish but were sometimes called 'upper Samish'" (Smith 1941)
  

-"These people, as I have already pointed out, should not be confused with the Samish who spoke a dialect of the Straits language. The people of duwaha or the Upper Samish instead spoke the Upper Skagit-Nisqually [archaic name for Lushootseed] group of languages." (Collins 1974)

-"The Noo-wah-ah people are often erroneously referred to as 'Upper Samish.'" (Sampson 1972)

• • ALT1: ... that the Nuwhaha people, despite sometimes being known as the "Upper Samish", do not speak the Samish language? Source: Sampson (a Swinomish historian who had both Nuwhaha and Samish ancestry) was adamant in his source (repeating several times) that the usage of "Upper Samish" for the Nuwhaha is "wrong" and "erroneous." I think it warrants inclusion in the DYK personally, but it can be removed if it doesn't fit.
  • Reviewed:

Created by PersusjCP (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

PersusjCP (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC).

• Still needs a QPQ, but I like the first hook and the sources check out. Article appears to be in good shape and eligible, without uncited paragraphs and no evidence of copyvio. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • IIRC I have less than 5 noms but I can definitely do one! I'm wasn't sure if it was required. @Generalissima PersusjCP (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: This is PersusjCP's fourth nom according to her contributions. What else does this need?--Launchballer 16:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops!! My bad. This is good to go then. My bad, Perseus; I thought for sure you had five already. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

All good, haha! The one I am planning on nominating next should be my fifth! Thanks! PersusjCP (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A geographic descriptor, even a confusing one, is not necessarily “Erroneous.”

While using a geographic descriptor that is similar to another groups name can be confusing, this isn’t quite the same as “erroneous.” Exonyms often work like that. Qwirkle (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you know what the erroneous tag is talking about? I came here to find out and maybe do some research but I don't see anything. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"Samish" is more of a cultural and linguistic descriptor. It implies that they are related to the "Lower"/proper Samish, and sources specifically clarify they are not. The Sampson 1972 source specifically uses the wording "erroneously." A name that implies they are something they aren't is erroneous. PersusjCP (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Exonyms often work like that. Qwirkle (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So what's incorrect about it then? PersusjCP (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. There's nothing "erroneous" about this exonyn, or any other. You can argue it is confusing. You can say that some members of the in group don't like it. But it is no more "erroneous" than calling some Palatinate German's descendents "Dutch." Qwirkle (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is erroneous. It establishes a continuity between the two groups that never existed. That is why it is erroneous. It isn't saying that the name itself is erroneous, but that the connection is wrong. The name Upper Samish suggests that the Nuwhaha are a subgroup or a equal part of the greater Samish. That's factually wrong, and the source says so. PersusjCP (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

...just like the Pennsylvania Dutch, yep. Qwirkle (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is your opinion that it is not erroneous, the word is verifiable by RS PersusjCP (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the use of the word is verifiable by a source. That is an entirely different thing. Qwirkle (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no dispute in sources, there is no other viewpoint in sources, otherwise it is just OR per WP:VOICE. I'm gonna post this on 3O since it's only two of us and this is going in circles. PersusjCP (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that you have backed your assertion with a source which uncritically uses "Upper Samish", I expect that will end better for the article than for you. Qwirkle (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No need to be rude jeez... I'm just seeking a third opinion PersusjCP (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in on this after the discussion but "erroneously" seems fine to me here. If they are not Samish people but are frequently called so I see no reason to not include this. (sock-the-guy not logged in) 2600:8800:7180:8D:7C59:A9BE:274B:756B (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion ?

User:PersusjCP, User:Qwirkle - A Third Opinion was requested. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In reference to the first sentence in the Name section: Is the word "erroneously" suitable? PersusjCP (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

...given that only one source use the term "erroneous", and other sources in fact use the term without saying that (but noting that it can be used confusingly.) A statement that isn't broadly accepted by the sources should not be written as simple fact in Wikipedia' voice, but attributed to the author.

This is a case where a geography-based name can cause confusion with a linguistic group, and has the usual problems which exonyms can have. Qwirkle (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your source for it being a "geography-based name"? All the sources treat it as a cultural-linguistic name, hence the reason for the clarification in the sources. In old material, they are sometimes called "Stick Samishes", further owing to the fact that early ethnographic material treated them as an inland group of the Samish people ("Stick" Indians is an older term for peoples living way inland).

Per WP:VOICE: "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion." Nowhere in any source is the assertation that it is correct. If you have published material saying that it is correct, then I'm fine with omitting it and giving due weight to both. PersusjCP (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Upper Samish is a place, just like Upper Missisippi is. That's where the name comes from.

As alluded to above, most of the English language cites you yourself added used the term "Upper Samish" without any claim it was "erroneous," but makng a careful point that it could be misleading. Sampson is an outlier here. Qwirkle (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Upper Samish is not a place?? Maybe the "Upper reaches of the Samish River" but "Upper Samish" is not a place. The name comes from a supposed linguistic/cultural link between the Upper (inland/forest/stick) "Samish" (the Nuwhaha) and the "Lower" (coastal) Samish (the Samish). Just because there is a river, the Samish River, does not mean that they were named after the river. It is the other way around, the Samish River was named after the Samish in their own language (Xws7amesh) after they took over the mouth of the river during the Nuwhaha decline.

Moreover, here is the usage in the English-language sources:

• Smith 1941 p.210: "duwa"xa [sic]: mainland drainages from South Bellingham to Bayview including part of Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish and Samish River. Once a large group they were pushed inland by wars with the Samish. They did not speak Samish but were sometimes called "upper Samish," stiksamic, stiksabc, or stikawac [Stick Samish]"[1] Noted discrepancy between the Samish and Upper Samish. No assertion that Upper Samish was the usual term along with Stick Samish (in her orthography).
• Collins 1974 p.20 "These people [Nuwhaha], as I have already pointed out, should not be confused with the Samish who spoke a dialect of the Straits language. The people of duwaha [sic] or the Upper Samish instead spoke the Upper Skagit-Nisqually group of languages." Like the Smith source it shows an alternative name and not the usual name. Neither source presents an alternative to the fact that it is erroneous, as claimed by Sampson (1972) pp.25-29:

"The Noo-wah-ah people are often erroneously referred to as 'Upper Samish' ... Samish Island was owned by the Noo-wha-ah [sic] Tribe (wrongly referred to as the Upper Samish)." Sampson goes on to elaborate on the differences between the Samish and Nuwhaha.

None of the sources contest Sampson's attestation that it is wrong. They simply do not comment on the matter. That is not the same as saying that it is a correct term. I repeat: PER WP:VOICE "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion." There is no specific disagreement in this topic as attested by the sources. Attribution is not specifically needed.PersusjCP (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't appreciate your assumption that I am fabricating research a la Bellesiles.[2] WP:NPA PersusjCP (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)