Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Name issues
This is a listing of indigenous peoples in North America topics with name issues articles, categories and templates for reference and discussion purposes. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Draft guidelines for indigenous content.
FOO people issues[edit]
Because of the addition of "+ people" to many previously-FOO articles, namespace collisions have resulted in many cases.
- re categories, Category:Cree people and Category:Sto:lo people are about "people who are FOO", because of the RM and subsequent CfR and speedy TFSD, Category:Squamish people and Template:Squamish people are now about the people as a whole, not people who are Skwxwu7mesh. Category:People who belong to the Squamish Nation is too unwieldy, Category:People of Squamish descent still too vague because of Squamish, British Columbia being the primary usage in English, and Category:People of Skwxwu7mesh descent would neither match the parent category nor those who adamantly maintain such names have no place in English Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, all the "FOO people" categories, save one (Category:Squamish people are about "people who are FOO". If the "category name must match article name" guideline were really applied hard and strict, they would all have to be used for the people as a whole, and have to be changed to "people who are FOO" and/or "People of FOO descent". The easier solution is to revert all the "FOO people" main articles to simply "FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- NB other "FOO people" articles vary, some such as Norwegian people and German people are redirects to Norwegians and Germans, while French people is about people who are French, i.e. from France, not francophone as with Belgians, Acadians, French Swiss etc. (the last-named is a redirect to Swiss people). Also Canadians and Americans are examples of other "people who are FOO" where +people has not been used.Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Many articles have been spared the imposition of the "+ people" construction e.g. Menominee. The category there is Category:Menominee tribe which is about the federally-registered tribe, its subcategory Category:Menominee people is about "people who are Menominee".Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- the Native American category for "people who are FOO" is Category:Native American people by tribe and as far as I can tell, haven't looked them over yet, all those are "people who are FOO", none are "ethnic group FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Caddoan peoples contains "FOO people" articles which are "ethnic group FOO" rather than "people who are FOO". Other subcategories of Category:Native American tribes probably contain similar.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tainos is now a redirect to Taino people, which is about the ethnic group, not "people who are Taino".
Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just as a check, I tired "French people", "Sorbian people", "Karelian people", "Welsh people", "Greek people" (just a random peoples of Europe) to see if this "_____ people" is systematic. And it's not. Sorbs, Karelian, and Greeks don't fit the patterns. So, if that is the case, why are indigenous peoples of North America articles being force fitted into "_____ people"? Now, endonym or exonym? It appears in the Europeans, the English name is given but English alternatives and endonyms are also given unless then endonym has become the English exonym. In the case of indigenous peoples of North America, many endonyms have entered into English and have displaced the English exonyms, though those exonyms are still encountered (Ojibwe v. Ojibwa/Chippewa, Skwxwuymesh v. Squamish, Dene v. Athapascan), and others are in flux (Ho-chunk v. Winnebago, Fox v. Meskwaki, Diegueño v. Kumeyaay, etc.), yet others still use the English names (Mohawk v. Kanien'kehá:ka, Cherokee v. Tsalagi, etc.). The point here is that part of Self-determination of these peoples must be respected and English is changing to accommodate that, including calling the people what they call themselves (even if it may be slightly Anglicised by omitting some or all the diacritics), and Wikipedia ought to reflect that. CJLippert (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- thanks for that. Canadian official and media styleguides generally have adopted, when they do, the endonyms without diacriticals. In cases like Sto:lo to use the endonyms or not also varies within the group of peoples i.e. one tribal council uses them, the other does not. In some cases parallel spellings exist as with St'at'imc/Stl'atl'imx in the case of two different tribal councils; the latter people call themselves Ucwalmicw however (Lower Lillooet, exclusive of the Lil'wat). I have a friend who's Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police, their name was recently updated to match that of the St'at'imc Nation tribal council and the Upper St'at'imc Language, Culture and Education Centre and the as-yet-unbuilt-still-raising-money-for-it St'at'imc Cultural Centre.Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just as a check, I tired "French people", "Sorbian people", "Karelian people", "Welsh people", "Greek people" (just a random peoples of Europe) to see if this "_____ people" is systematic. And it's not. Sorbs, Karelian, and Greeks don't fit the patterns. So, if that is the case, why are indigenous peoples of North America articles being force fitted into "_____ people"? Now, endonym or exonym? It appears in the Europeans, the English name is given but English alternatives and endonyms are also given unless then endonym has become the English exonym. In the case of indigenous peoples of North America, many endonyms have entered into English and have displaced the English exonyms, though those exonyms are still encountered (Ojibwe v. Ojibwa/Chippewa, Skwxwuymesh v. Squamish, Dene v. Athapascan), and others are in flux (Ho-chunk v. Winnebago, Fox v. Meskwaki, Diegueño v. Kumeyaay, etc.), yet others still use the English names (Mohawk v. Kanien'kehá:ka, Cherokee v. Tsalagi, etc.). The point here is that part of Self-determination of these peoples must be respected and English is changing to accommodate that, including calling the people what they call themselves (even if it may be slightly Anglicised by omitting some or all the diacritics), and Wikipedia ought to reflect that. CJLippert (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"non-standard orthograpy" and "not English" names[edit]
- Re obscure characters, there are many examples where either no options exist or where the native spelling is now predominant:
- Xa:ytem, Kiix?in, Sheet'ká Ḵwáan Naa Kahídi etc.
- Re native names, there are many where what would otherwise not be "normal English usage" nonetheless have apostrophes and other characters that are "standard English ASCII" but where the native form has to be used e.g. 'Ksan, 'Namgis ("Ksan" and "Nimpkish" are the usual English forms of those, for the people the latter one is now obsolete though it still exists in English as Nimpkish Lake and Nimpkish River.Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- SG̱ang Gwaay I myself long ago redirected to Ninstints because of its underscore-G, and older "English" transliteration is Skungwai, but now reconsidering that, though "Ninstints" is still more global in usage....so far. Same is true of the older form of Skedans.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)