Talk:Wakashan languages

Kwakiutl vs Southern Kwakiutl

No. 2 in the list of Wakashan Languages was given as Kwakwaka'wakw (a.k.a. Kwakiutl, Southern Kwakiutl) but this is the name of the people, not the language, which I have adjusted the text to name properly: Kwak'wala. It's also worth noting that Kwakwaka'wakw as a group term does not normally include the Southern Kwakiutl (Laich-kwil-tach, more familiar as the Yucultas or Euclataws), who are a separate political group. So far as I know, they also speak Kwak'wala, but possibly in a different dialect, partly because of the assimilated Comox population within their ranks.Skookum1 08:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a gap in the map?

Please note on the map there is a gap between what appears to be the Kwak'wala speaking area and teh Heiltsuk-Oowekyala speaking area. there is no reason for this; the only other language/group in the area is Nuxalk, but their territory does not reach open water, it's inland only, i.e. at the head of the inlets; there is no "blank space" on the linguistic map of the area, or shouldn't be. Maps of the PacNW languages would also be helped if they were closeup maps of the region, with an inset showing location on the continent.Skookum1 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the full resolution, this doesn't seem to be the case: there are some small islands which are in red, but when scaled down, this, their outline, and the water blue blend to a "gap-like" grey.

Close-up maps sound like a good idea. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Wakash Indians is an unreferenced orphan that discusses a language family but in obsolete terms. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support. There could be inserted into this article, with the Catholic Encyclopedia and whatever else as cite(s), a line that says "peoples speaking languages belong to this group were formerly referred to as Wakash Indians by the 190x-vintage Catholic Encyclopedia." As noted elsewhere, there's an archaic map showing Vancouver Island with the label "Wakish Nation" which I'll dig out the cite/publication date for once I remember which book I saw it in....Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Title is archaic: should be merged or deleted

Nearly all content here is from vintage Catholic Encyclopedia write-ups, and whatever is here is covered in or could be added to Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth and related articles (Oweekyala language, Haisla, Heiltsuk etc). "Wakash Indians" can be a redirect, but it's not a proper name for an article - partly because this term is no longer used, and two or more distinct groups are involved; on old BC maps Vancouver Island is even shown as "Wakish Nation" (irrespective of the Straits Salish on its SE) but this, also, is very archaic. I wasn't sure to put a merge tag here or a delete one; some material may be useful elsewhere, so "merge" seemed the best option...but merge to WHAT, exactly? Nuu-chah-nulth, Makah, Kwakwaka'wakw, Haisla, Heiltsuk or Oweekyala??

Move/rename

Rather than submit this to speedy delete, as might be one course of action, it might be better to rename it to Wakashan peoples, such that it serves as t eh ethnograhpic page apposite to Wakashan languages in the same way that Coast Salish is the ethnographic parallel to the lingistic Coast Salish languages page. "Wakash Indians" is a long-archaic usage and like others in the Catholic Encyclopedia is "off" by modern terminiology/ethnographic usages/reality. "Wakish Nation" also shows up on old, old maps (for VAncouver Island, as if the Salish didn't exist). Anyway rather than delete I think the course of action here, which I've puzzled over for a while, is to simply rename this Wakashan peoples.

• Support as nominator per reasons above.Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)