Talk:Tututni

Untitled

Is Coquille the right name for all the Oregon Athabaskans? --coreyr 03:14, 17 April 2006 (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 09:45, 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) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tututni people → Tututni – target is redirect to current title, started as redirect to "Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages" by Ish Ishwar on May 29 2006 who then reconsidered and redirected to "Rogue River (tribe)" on the same day. The double redirect to Rogue River people was fixed by Xqbot on Jan 4 2011 then redirected to current title by Uysvdi on June 5 2012. Rogue River (tribe) was moved to "Rogue River people" by Uysvdi citing "removing punctuation, in keeping with other indigenous groups' articles" then moved to current title by Uysvdi on June 5 2012, citing "moving to name used by the people; taking the liberty of making a unilateral move since I'm the only person who has edited this since 2009" WP:UNDAB and WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) were ignored. Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 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) 12:28, 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.Skookum1 (talk) 12:38, 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) 12:52, 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 02:40, 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 Tututni redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:23, 30 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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tututni/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

short writeup, needs expansion, separate language article --Skookum1

Substituted at 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating with information from Hall 2021 and other recent publications

Hey all, I'm an indigenous linguistics student and I've noticed for a while that the wikipedia space around Oregon Athabaskan languages is somewhat out of date with recent scholarship, particularly in the field on language revitalization. With Jaeci Hall's dissertation published last fall, pointing to many more recent authoritative sources, I think it's a good opportunity to get my hands on some sources, "be bold", and overhaul the presentation of these languages on wikipedia.

The main thing at issue is the dual question of phylogeny and terminology. Hall 2021 and many others in the speaker/language revitalization communities consider Lower Rogue River, Upper Rogue River, and Chetco-Tolowa to be three major dialect groups of one single language, Nuu-wee-ya', rather than separate languages as they're represented here on wkipedia and in older literature. Additionally, while there is not yet and may never be a scholarly consensus due to these being underdocumented language varieties, the breakdown of subdialects represented throughout wikipedia does not align with more recent scholarship, nor is it even internally consistent. Finally, the terminology and orthographies used for languages, dialects and people groups throughout the pages in this space are inconsistent and often unsourced, and links often do not lead where they should.

Over the next few months (vague window of time, highly dependent on other responsibilities) I hope to make significant edits to the following pages to address these three concerns.

• Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages
• Tututni language (which I expect to propose moving to Lower Rogue River language)
• Tututni
• Galice language (which I expect to propose moving to Upper Rogue River language)
• Shasta Costa
• Rogue River Indians

In addition, I will make some minor edits to other pages to establish a consistent terminology and description across wikipedia:

• Template:Athabaskan languages
• "Category:Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages"
• Template:Languages of Oregon
• Athabaskan languages
• Coquille people
• Coquille Indian Tribe
• Tolowa language
• Upper Umpqua language
• Siletz
• Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Finally, I intend to create a page for the macro-language which comprises the Lower Rogue River, Upper Rogue River, and Chetco-Tolowa dialect groups, as much recent scholarship, language revitalization efforts, and materials from the tribes refer to them collectively as one language or dialect continuum. I am unsure of the correct name for this page, which is why I'm waiting on creating it. Most of the linguistics collections of languages don't recognize any subgrouping below Oregon Athabaskan, and in fact they tend to conflict even on what the constituent dialects are and what they should be called. The best name for the article, in my opinion, is Nuu-wee-ya as that is the most common designation for the language in a few places on the internet, including in Jaeci Hall's 2021 dissertation on the language which is the most recent authoritative source. My only hesitation is that it's an endonym and relatively new in usage in English, so hasn't been used, as far as I can tell, at all in linguistics outside of the language revitalization subfield. Then again, this being an underdocumented, previously extinct indigenous language undergoing language revitalization, that subfield is perhaps the most relevant place to look.

I'm relatively inexperienced with making major edits to Wikipedia, so I am more than happy to hear peoples concerns, advice or objections and to discuss how best to make these changes, either on my talk page (where I've also posted this) or on the talk pages of any of the individual pages I plan to edit. I will be adding more here before making any major edits to this page, and I will try to be sure the relevant section of my talk page is updated with any of the terminology or phylogenic classification of the language(s) that I propose to make standard across wikipedia. Feel free to reply here or on my talk page with any comments or concerns! Koricind (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)