Talk:Stʼatʼimc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lillooet people)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lisannet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notes for later; needed articles[edit]

It's late but wanted to jot down some stuff I'll try to get to, at least at stub level. This page needs a Government/s section, mirroring contents on the Lillooet Tribal Council page (where St'at'imc Nation redirects, and agencies like the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police and Upper St'at'imc Language Authority (it may be Upper St'at'imc Language and Culture Authority, but I can't remember though that seems unwieldy); the Canadian law enforcement categories deserve some overlap with aboriginal categories; not sure how much information there is but at least Aboriginal law enforcement or something of some title might be an article, if there's not enough for particular agencies; I know Wiki's not supposed to be a directory so that's why I thought of individual articles; maybe there's not enough history for any one group or ogranizatoin, except in certain cases; it's the general existence of native law enforcxmeent agencdies that seems worth an article overall, but I wouldn't know where to start to look up dates of creation and rules/agreements involved, education and governane and so on) there's also individual First Nations-run schools; these could simply be named on their respective band and community pages; but I know there's an equivalent representation for "white government"-run schools (List of Canadian residential schools (or to be specific, List of Canadian First Nations residential schools points in a whole important direction; especially because some, like Alert Bay and Mission/St. Mary's, survive as native culture institutions (U'mista and T'oti:ihl'tet respectively and don't hold me to the spelling on the second one, even if it's in my home town. I know, it's all who puts what in, but like I said these are notes for later, either for myself when I have the time or for someone who finds something worth undertaking and wants to write them. The police agencies are all evolutions, IMO, ofr the post-Oka experience; the Seton Portage incident is covered, and Gustafsen Lake more or less (if contentiously), but not the Green Mountain blockade in the same period on the way to Apex from Penticton, and so on; no doubt there's a Mohawk Warrior Society article by now...or not? OK, g'nite.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diacriticals in FN catnames[edit]

Please see this on the CFD talklpage.Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciations[edit]

Could someone check the pronunciations? I assume they were supposed to be English, and tried converting them, but have no way of knowing if I got them right. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which ones you mean; some of the spellings given are in St'at'imcets orthography, which differs from ours on various counts, even though it looks like the same characters (look at hte category name, it's got the full diacriticals, but it's not a system shared by any other language, though I think the Secwepemctsin system is similar or it's the basis of the St'at'imcets/Van Eijk one. Even without them some words/names like Tslalh and Ohin look one way, sound quite different (Ohin - ooxwin, with that first oo maybe more like an o, but not). SFAIK there's no St'at'imcets linguist kicking around here, might not hurt to ask at Talk:St'at'imcets. Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the IPA. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might try here at least for someone to write to, to have those IPAs checked/cofirmed, or there might be resources on that site giving the pronunciation. my contact name at USLCES is Marilyn Napoleon, don't know if she still works there though....Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"St'at'imc people"[edit]

Technically that's redundant, ilkewise on Secwepemc. "st'at'imc means "people of S'at", meaning the Bridge River Fishing Grounds (which I've got to get around to uploading a picture of .... ) so "people" is already in it. Generally we only add the "people" ending when the name is not the endonym, e.g. Okanagan people (vs Syilx) or Nicola people vs Nk'walamx or whatever it is in Scwex'emx or whatever that dialect of the Thompson language is called.....Note there's been a standard evolved of using the endonym for the main article, but NOT t he name name of the language for the language article, rather the most common one....Tsimshian and Coast Tsimshian are an exception to paradimgs like Nlaka'pamux/Thompson language, Secwepemc/Shuswap language or Nuxalk/Bella Coola language; though Kwak'wala and Halkomelem have their own articles, partly because theyv'e become common uses in English, at least in BC. Gitxsan and Gitxsan language happen to converge, but consider the native name for the language is a lot different...I was gonna say Gitaanmax but that's a place...another example though would be Tsimshian vs Smalgyax, which is their name for their language; the article is Coast Tsimshian, the English usage. Likewise Dakelh/Carrier language and Tsilhqot'in vs Chilcotin language ('tin = people, qo = river, tsilh - red, red ochre). St'at'imc's language counterpart is St'at'imcets and you do hear "St'at'imcets language", though that's redundant; and of course in ethnography, at least outside of BC where St'at'imcets is standard, it's still Lillooet language, and worth noting that the Lower Lillooet, especially down the lower Lillooet River, use "Ucwalmic" - which kinda of means "ours, to do with us", for the name of the language, since they're not "from Sat'". Discussing all this because of your change of this article from St'at'imc to St'at'imc people. "Lillooet people", yeah, OK, but St'at'imc people is redundant....Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moved back. Also move the lang article to avoid redundancy. Personally, I'd prefer both to be at Lillooet--probably more common, but also IMO more accessible to English speakers. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have an issue with using foreign orthography in English Wikipedia, especially in titles. Those might look like apostrophes, they're not, for intance - /t'/ is the "tl" sound, and that c is really more like a closing-h although it usually comes is slat-LEE-um....the older spelling was Stl'atl'imx and the cloesst I've seen is the "primitive" inaccurate-lokoing one, concoted from Englishi spelling conventions before the linguists started coming up with specialized latinizations - Slatliumh, which is pretty much how it's said. But the convention in BC now is St'at'imc Nation rather than Lillooet Tribal Council, and the Sun and Provicne and also alternative media use the native-preferred form. As for the language, I'd say make it conform like Shuswap language and Thompson language, for much the same reason - Secwepemctsin and Nlaka'pamuctsn don't roll off the English tongue, or stick in an English head, any better than St'at'icmets does.....there's no consistency in that endonym/language paradigm, but it's been evolving. Do you want to try a move proposal to Lillooet language? ie. for St'at'imcets Skookum1 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a proposal; probly not too many of us involved with it.
I prefer Lillooet, but then I also like keeping the same word for the people & the language.
Either way, add /slætˈliːəm/ as the Eng pron? — kwami (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good idea. But re keeping the same word for the people & the language again Secewpemc/Shuswap language; Nlaka'pamux/Thompson language, Dakelh/Carrier language, Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish language.....I think the reason taht th ENglish name for the language is used is because the most common use/reference (other than in BC) is in ethnology/linguistic - where Lillooet language is the corresopnding item. "St'at'imc" still isn't in English orthography, though it looks latinized; but it's not; the aboriginal police for, for instance, uses Stl'at'limx Tribal Police and it also seems more common in the Lower Lillooet (Mt Currie-Port Douglas), but I'm only speaking of visible signage; NB, again, Ucwalmicw (with an accent/diacritical on the "i", which is what the language is called in Semahquam/Douglas, at least officially; I've heard it in Seton, too, as a reference for the language, and that was from a langauge teacher who was actually from Fountain herself. But even Ucwalmicw isn't English orthography; that /c/ is something between an [h] and [']; in the older spelling system I guess that's Uxwalmixw - which looks like the Squamish version Uxwuimixw......I'm not professing by any means to know ma great deal ab out the language, I'm just concerned with how to spell/name it in English, and I have reservations about the "official" use now mandated from the St'at'imc Nation. It's as if all of a sudden we were supposed to spell Grand Forks in Russian characters in English (I mention Grand Forks because it's a heavily Doukhobor area, or start using the two-characters meaning "China" in English whenver we write Chinatown.....yet all over Wikipedia there's things spelled in foreign orthography, particularly Polish, Hungarian, Turkish etc names/alphabets....it would make it easier in BC, given the sprachbund in these parts, if all the native linguists had chosen the same latinization/romanization system, but they didn't; in some cases, including this one, they specificially chose a different system, than the neighhbourhing people(s) in order to be different. /t'/ menas someting different in Chilcotin than it does in Lillooet than it does in Shuswap than it does in Squamish; in Chinook and modern Chinook Jargon it's an ejective; sfaik only Lillooet uses it for the [tl] sound.Skookum1 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, why has this article not been moved from its unwieldy, apparently even incorrect or misleading, and, may I point out, non-English title to the reader-friendly Lillooet people, which is actually even still completely unused? Have I missed something? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfR for St'at'imc category (removing diacriticals to make it easier to use)[edit]

Please note/see

Requested move[edit]

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: There's much to consider from this lengthy discussion. First off, this is clearly an WP:ENGVAR issue, so per ENGVAR and WP:AT we give preference to the topic's national variety of English, in this case Canadian English. It appears that the native name "St'at'imc" has become standard in Canadian English-language sources; opposes that didn't account for the ENGVAR issue were given less consideration. In any event, the consensus here favors "St'at'imc". Arguments were made for "Lillooet people" based on WP:COMMONALITY, though we didn't see much evidence that "Lillooet" is really that much more common in recent, quality sources. Finally, the article was moved to the current title without discussion, despite previous discussions of the name. As the article was at "St'at'imc" or a close variant from its creation 9 years ago until 6 months ago, the proposed title is the status quo. As such, I'll move the article to "St'at'imc".. Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lillooet people → St'at'imc – User:Kwamikagami was in error about COMMONNAME and ENGLISH. CANENGL applies on Canadian articles, and "St'at'imc" is the modern standard and accepted usage for this people...including by themselves. As for the COMMONNAME part, "St'at'imc" (without quotes, or else the result is 26,000,000) yields 200,000 results, "Lillooet people" yields only 5,130. The other problem with the current title is it will cause complications if someone tries to move the category associated with these people to "Lillooet", as has already come up in a CfR opposing my contention it should be Category:St'at'imc. "St'at'imc" is what you will find in media coverage, in academia, in the publications from the people themselves, generally without the diacriticals, just those in the Halkomelem version of "Sto:lo" are omitted, other than the colon. What I'm saying, also is that this IS English. Canadian English. CANENGL applies, and "strong national sentiment" also. Skookum1 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support restore, and another WP:TROUT for another undiscussed move counter/without Talk page discussion by Kwamikagami. Plus Google Books sources for the people. Alison M M Johnston Is the Sacred for Sale: Tourism and Indigenous Peoples 2012 "The Cariboo Chilcotin tourism region, where the St'at'imc live, is considered underdeveloped. ... This claim to fame has not been healing for race relations.20 Lillooet was the largest centre north of Chicago during the 1860s and beckoned.. " In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY if nothing else. Many people have heard of the "Lillooet". Hardly anyone has heard of the "St'at'imc", which AFAICT does not even have an English pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply "many people" is your claim, I have yet to see you cite a reference for that claim for any of these RMs......"hardly anyone" doesn't include people in the region, or who read dailies such as the Vancouver Sun. As far as YOU know it doesn't have an English pronunciation, but it is regularly used in English in the area and in BC media. Here is an example from an article in today's British Columbia edition of the Huffington Post, which is not "hardly anyone".Skookum1 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the link to the actual example. I'm curious. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget it, you didn't notice it. Here it is again.Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
here is another one, and note it mentions the St'at'imc Hydro Agreement, which is that document's legal name and is obviously in English. How "hydro agreement" would be rendered in St'at'imcets/Ucwalmicwts I have no idea. "Lillooet Hydro Agreement" wouldn't work for what are obvious reasons to a local or anyone who recognizes "Lillooet" primarily as the name of the town. "St'at'imc Chiefs Council" is another English name using it, do you want more? Re the older spelling there's the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police and the Lower Stl'atl'imx Tribal Council.Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't forget, then you simply failed to support your claim. I can't find the pronunciation in either of those links.
Of course we'd use that name for the hydro agreement. It's its name. It's also irrelevant for the name of this article, as the people have *two* names. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three, actually, including the very-native Ucwalmicw. The history of how they became called "Lillooet" is a story in itself; the Lillooet Tribal Council was named before the native-language revival began and though still in use, that tribal council (now St'at'imc Nation, which is "how they sign their cheques" and likely is what's on their bank accounts and certainly on their correspondence/letterhead) and all groups and orgs use "St'at'imc" or, as noted, "Stl'atl'imx", including formerly the tribal council until the adoption of the van Eijk orthograpy as the main preference. For you to cherry-pick the name that seems "easiest" to you (and still isn't English, and also doesn't have an obvious pronunciation) is grasping at straws while also being presumptuous that "Kwami knows best, it doesn't matter what these people prefer or what is used in the media or by any government". WP:MOSFOLLOW is pretty clear about following "what the sources say". The further confusion with the town of Lillooet and the region of the same name, and the river and lake, is one reason they chose "St'at'imc" as more apt for all of them; another is that many of them still alive remember being beaten and abused for speaking their own languages or using native names. Maybe you'd like to tell them that what they feel doesn't matter to you? I know I wouldn't think of it.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On one of the pages at the Upper St'at'imc Language, Culture and Education Society's website, there is this line: "We are also mistakenly known as the "Lillooet Tribe". Our language is a member of the Interior Salish Language Family." while this page discusses the various spelling systems] and describes t he choice of "St'at'imc". Teit's usage from his writings gives the Secwepemctsin version semi-anglicized as "Slatlemuk" (the -muk is Secwepemtsin, though, not pronounced as -imc or -imx are). "Stlatliumh" as you should know by now is both an archaic anglicization though recognizably pronounceable; but "nativizations" of indigenous names are now (as I'll repeated again) the accepted and expected norm in Canada. People can't pronounce Antigonish right either, or Craigellachie; both very notable placenames that people have to experience to know how to say right. I've heard "Nana-EEmo" for Nanaimo and "Co-KEET-lam" for Coquitlam. It's not like most people are going to get the guttural-q in Iqaluit, either.Skookum1 (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point that we speak English and that the names we use are supposed to be English. There's no /q/ in Iqaluit because English does not have a /q/. Most people don't "get" the guttural-r in Paris either, because, again, English doesn't have such a sound. Not all things have an English name, but when they do, that's the one we use. "Mistaken" in your quote just means not native. The fact that people mispronounce English words is irrelevant: the question is whether there even *is* an English pronunciation. If not, it's not an English name, and so not appropriate as a title for an English article. You keep dodging the issue, so I take it you have no satisfactory answer. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kwami, Iqualuit figures in the nightly weather reports on any Canadian network, that it probably gets "Ikaloo-it" as a pronunciation doesn't mean it's not English....and there's other names in Canada with a [q] (if not a /q/). It's YOU who continue to evade the very real point that these terms are very much part of Canadian English, and that this is Canadian English this article and attendant category are about, not any other kind of English. I take it you have no satisfactory answer, since you never reply to that and keep on claiming it's not part of English because you say so. "It doesn't have a pronunciation in English" is hogwash; if you live in BC and follow the news you'd know it does. But here, why don't you write the editor of the Bridge River-Lillooet News and ask her what she uses in English-language articles and how she pronounces it (she's white, her name is Wendy Fraser).Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"dodging the issue", no that's not me, Kwami, it's you. Proof that these words are used in English is all over the internet and in the cites provided; your insistence that they allegedly can't be pronounced and therefore aren't English flies in face of the facts that they are in use, and while English pronunciation isn't going to match, only approximate, the native-language pronunciation, it still exists whether you like it or not. Your constant evasions of the pertinent point and of google listings I've also enumerated is "dodging the issue" by honing on in the apparent fact that dictionaries don't have IPAs for these; dictionaries are not the whole of the English language, and take years to catch up to accepted usages for matters such as these and you know it. The pronunciation guides from the networks have been requested; my inquiry at the BC government's office responsible for language usage won't be answered until the person in question gets back from holidays on the 21st. How much more legwork do you expect me to do to deal with your refusal to admit you were wrong in acting without consultation on moving these articles? Clearly controversial moves, which were not supposed to be done that way.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've become irrational: I'm racist because you're unable to support your argument. That's an idiotic characterization. All I ask is that you prove your point. It's not up to me to prove your point for you. If you're unable to prove it, then it's unproven.
Could you at least meet me half way and provide the pronunciation of "St'at'imc"? Ditto for all the other move requests you made. I'm not asking for a RS for any of them (though eventually ones would be needed), but it would be nice if you could provide a source for your claim that Canadian English has a /q/. (The recent Canadian-English dictionary, maybe.) — kwami (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YOU are the one being irrational, Kwami, and inane as well as picayune. "Iqaluit" when used in English (as it constantly is, as noted (it's a well-known name, also the capital of Nunavut) is "obviously" pronounced "Ikaluit" and your FALSE CLAIM that I said there was a /q/ in English is yet another of the things you claim I've said which I did not. I said these names are current in English and that's easily citable; yet you ignore all those cites and are zeroing in on the absence (supposedly) of any cites as me being "incapable". Oh, I'm very capable, and just wrote the news networks for their pronunciation guides for native names. Have you written the editor of the Bridge River-Lillooet News as I suggested you could do? She'd also be using "Nlaka'pamux" regularly, as that paper has circulation in Lytton and covers matters in that area. She probably also knows how to pronounced "Secwepemc". Stop demanding cites for things when you don't provide any for your many claims yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meet you halfway? Where are your cites proving "Lillooet people" is more widely used; the google results certainly don't say that.Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to restore: An ethnic group should be called what THEY want to be called, not some basically racist name imposed upon them by outsiders. It isn't an WP:ENGLISH issue, we aren't talking about Munich versus München here, we are talking about an express decision by the people so labeled. (This is akin to proerly saying "African-Ameican" as opposed to something more archaic or offensive...) Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide its English pronunciation? Skookum appears to be unable to.
And yes, we are talking Munich versus München here. There are people who claim that "München" is correct and use it (or an approximation of it) when speaking English. If more people did that than not, then we would move the article to "München". Same goes here. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I gave you a link where you could directly ask the editor of the paper in Lillooet if there's an English pronunciation; she uses the name "St'at'imc" all the time; and indicated you could poll CBC and CTV for their pronunciation guidelines too, since they regularly use this name and not the one you claim is "English". And you claim "Lillooet" is an English "word" even though it's native in origin......and its pronunciation also isn't obvious. And you as a linguist pretending you don't know that Teit called these people, per their Secwepemtsin name, Shuhkwapmuk, is a clue to pronunciation you continue to pretend doesn't exist, as also the older spelling of "Stlatliumh" which is how "St'at'imc" and "Stl'atl'imx" are pronounced, but is an older spelling that has been replaced for indigenous sensitivities and preferences (something which you hold in disdain, but man is that a minefield....). I don't like the van Eijk spelling (St'at'imc either) and prefer myself the funkier-looking and slightly more easy to pronounced "Stl'atl'imx" (once you realize the 'x' is like in Spanish, kinda, i.e. 'h'), but it's "St'at'imc' that is now in common and official use. You have a real problem with allegedly non-English words being used, huh? So what are you going to do about Sto:lo people? ("Fraser River Salish"? "Cowidgin", maybe, as all Halkomelem-speakers were once called? Or I guess you'd want that changed to "Cowichan" as that's an "English word".......you know what, you're starting to remind me of the types in BC and Alberta who complain about French on the cereal boxes.Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to my emails this morning to CBC and CTV newsrooms and a CBC radio host of my acquaintance, I just informed my contact at USLCES in Lillooet about this discussion and the demand for cites "in English"......she may join the discussion once she gets the message (I'm in a different time zone 9 hours earlier than she is) and may have a citation for that.....but gee, Kwami, you know (or should) about the out-of-date anglicization "Statliumh" which is the pronunciation in English orthographic terms, it's "out there" but you've completely ignored its existence.Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not English. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Not English" is totally wrong, it may not be your English, but these names are the new norm in Canadian English and have been for a good twenty years and more. 'Ksan and Gingolx aren't "normal" English either, nor is Nuu-chah-nulth or Kwakwaka'wakw or Mi'kmaq or Inuit or Sto:lo, yet these are all common in Canadian English. You know, us funny folks that say "aboot" and use "-re" on "centre" and "-our" on "labour" and such.....and we embrace, including officially, indigenous words all the time...have a look at List of aboriginal place names in Canada and check it out. I suppose your position is that the Nisga'a article should be moved to the archaic Nishga people, too, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This "it's not English" is about the stupidest argument I've ever heard on Wikipedia; there are THOUSANDS of Native American/First Nation loan words in the English language, even "Lillooet" is clearly not an English word! So, shall we also eliminate words like caucus, Minnesota, Lake Okeechobee and all other examples because something "isn't English?" Sheesh. Don't be a bunch of insensitive colonialist ignoramuses here, SHOW RESPECT and call people what they want to be called. End of story. Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support St'at'imc (own name in the own language) is better from Lillooet. But, who are the Líľwat (http://www.firstvoices.com/en/Lilwat)? --Kmoksy (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'm not sure it's on this article or on the town's (district's, actually) but the story about how Cayoosh Flat came to be Lillooet in 1860 is partly about a union of the two peoples; really there were more like seven. The western group are the Lower St'at'imc; from D'Arcy/Nequatque up to Pavilion (Tskwylacw) it's Upper St'at'imc. It's the Upper St'at'imc dialect that van Eijk's book encompasses isn't the same as that in Lil'wat (of Mount Currie, British Columbia, about twenty-five miles from Whistler) or the Lower Stl'atl'imx from the now tiny-places down the Lillooet River from there, Skatin aka Skookumchuck Hot Springs, Semahquam (She-MAH-quam) and Port Douglas, also known as Xa'tsa (they use the x spelling down there, in Upper St' it would be with c's). St'at'imc means "people of Sat'", which is the area around the great fishing grounds on the Fraser. Fountain and Pavilion (the northeasternmost of the St'at'imc communities) have a lot of Secwepmec origins and ties. In 1860, ravaged and beleaguered by rapid change, all the chiefs had come to see Governor Douglas on his first visit to what was then Cayoosh Flat for a parlay (a wawa or waw-waw as Douglas' clerk Bushby spells it). The townspeople though the name Cayoosh was distasteful (I've always guessed because of the Cayuse Wars; many of the population were American who'd come through Wash Terr); they proposed the name Lillooet, a spelling already in use for the river and Port Lillooet, which was at the south end of Lillooet Lake and a route whose many names include the Lillooet Trail or the Douglas-Lillooet Trail (see Lakes Route). Douglas, understanding the sensitivities of the native peoples and knew to ask permission of the Lil'wat. So the story goes they came out of a little huddle with Upper/Sat' chiefs, including those on the site, and said "we are all Lillooet now". There was some kind of exchange of gifts at the boundary between upper and lower, which is precise and is a certain boulder with a footprint like depression in it near a place called Poole Creek. Lil'wat and the Pemberton Valley and south of there are "the old Lillooet" (meaning the region, not just the site/community of Lil'wat). Surrounding the town /district of Lillooet on nearly all sides are the reserves of the T'itq'et (?), Sekwelwas and Xwisten FN's; the Lillooet, Cayoose Creek and Bridge River bands. The Lillooet name as used for the whole of the speakers of St'at'imcets/Ucwalmicwts (which is what the Lower Stl'atl'imx use to call the language has its origins in a settler's request of the governor; as far as I know the peoples did it willingly, for mutual protection/support and because they all more or less spoke the same language, though I've heard some younger natives say that it was forced on them; that's how it's seen now by some; the historical record seems clear though I haven't heard elders talk about it (yet). It was a confusing name, especially because the town is not near the river or the lake or Lil'wat. Anyways that's why the two names and what they mean. Someone else put a collapse box on this please.Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Capmo has provided for the Shuswap/Secwepemc RM two of these links; the third I found for the Kutenai/Ktunaxa RM and it applies across the board and is also from the Ministry of Education like one of the two provided by Capmo:
That's a good start, even with the injured attitude. The bced.gov guide makes it pretty clear that they're only approximations, not actually English, so that's not a supporting ref. But the ones on the BCED map do look like actual English pronunciations. So that seems like a decent source (or at least as good as the book they copied from). Interesting that Chilcotin → Tsilhqot'in is simply a change in spelling, with the pronunciation staying the same. The AANDC guide is also a purely English transcription, without any of the "approximately as in X" descriptions that we use on our foreign IPA pages, or that the BCED guide uses. So that seems like a good source too.
For this article, Stl'atl'imc, Stl'atl'imx, St'át'imc are all accepted spellings according to the AANDC, and all three are pronounced "stat-lee-um". According to BCED, the first at least is pronounced "stat-liem". That looks like a rather incompetent equivalent of the AANDC pronunciation, what we would presumably render as "/ˈstætli.əm/ STAT-lee-əm". It looks like we would probably want to take the AANDC as our principal pronunciation guide, because the intended pronunciations seem clear, with the BCED map as a (somewhat illegible) supporting ref, but that the BCED guide is basically useless, being neither English nor native. — kwami (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - Concurring strongly with User:Montanabw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - Per arguments on Canadian English, and in line with WP:ENGVAR. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We are creating an encyclopedia the purpose of which is to educate and inform. That means using the accurate name per the people, and not perpetuating what is possibly an inaccuracy.(olive (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong oppose in wikipeida we use the common name, not the "correct name". The common name is Lilloot. This is how they are generally refered to. For the same reason we have an article Navajo people, not Dine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Referred to by whom?? In the local area and in Canadian/BC media and government "St'at'imc" is used, and by in the local area I mean not just the people themselves but their neighbours. "Lillooet Indians" is no longer in common use...maybe where you are, wherever that is, but not in British Columbia; locally that phrase would mean "Indians in Lillooet" (i.e. the Lillooet/T'itq'et, Bridge River/Xwisten and Cayoose Creek/Sekwelwas bands) vs "Mt Currie Indians" (the Lil'wat, 60 miles away, who are "the real Lillooet". Where do you get this claim of "common name" from? Not borne out by Google, maybe you're thinking of the Catholic Encyclopedia? As for the Dineh, naming conventions for countries outside Canada do not apply on Canadian-topic articles. Correct names are the norms in Canada now, and the older names are in disuse and/or discredited. So where is it that "Lillooet people" is the common name again? Anyone care to cite that or is "common knowledge" somehow a citation now?Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator's raw Google search results are dramatically flawed. By limiting the results to English-language pages in Canadian domains, I got 97 hits for "lillooet people" -"st'at'imc people" and 136 hits for "st'at'imc people" -static -"lillooet people". This is still a majority in favour of St'at'imc, but nowhere near the landslide claimed, clearly showing that "Canadian English" uses both names, and so this is not a regional varieties of English dispute. Therefore, by removing the Canada restriction, I got 160 for "lillooet people" -"st'at'imc people" and 186 for "st'at'imc people" -static -"lillooet people" -- an even thinner margin. But Wikipedia article titles are based on reliable sources, not random Google hits: GScholar had 60 for "lillooet people" -"st'at'imc people", and only 16 for "st'at'imc people" -"lillooet people". Hitomaro742 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reviewed the first and second-page results for the Canada-only google, the first one of your links above, it includes quotations from Teit (writing a hundred years ago) and constructions such as " office location in Lillooet. "People" know where the offices are..." and "St'at'imc (Lillooet) people" and one that uses "Interior Salish or Lillooet people" is from the St'at'imc Runner. Your own results are flawed for not considering these aspects of that search. The notion that the people themselves are not a reliable source is highly questionable, also. Fact of the matter is, "St'at'imc" is now the current correct usage, and the reliable sources for that are the media, particularly the local media such as the Bridge River-Lillooet News and the papers in Pemberton and Whistler where "St'at'imc" is used, plus the Vancouver Sun and any number of government agencies and various organizations as already cited.Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You looked at the LAST page of my results, not the first. The FIRST page includes the In-SHUCK-ch Nation website (Many ethnographers in the past have documented the history and culture of the Lillooet people -- obviously recent and Canadian), St'at'imc.com (Many ethnographers in the past have documented the history and culture of the Lillooet people. -- same as above, but still), The Canadian Encyclopedia (The Fraser River Lillooet people refer to themselves as STLA'-tlei-mu-wh -- nuff said), UBC Press (the St'át'imc or Upper Lillooet people), First Nations Employment Security (It is a member of the Lillooet Tribal Council, which is the largest grouping of band governments of the Stl'atl'imc people (aka the Lillooet people)), some guy's blog in which he researched ABOUT Teit, but not quoting him (I did a research paper on James Alexander Teit, and the Lillooet people, and he is quoted quite a bit in the Yesterday book), the T'it'q'et Administration (aboriginal and treaty rights and to ensure continuation of the Lillooet People), Saul Terry (decades of genocide and deceit, which continues to be perpetrated against the Lillooet people), Lillooet Indian Band (same text as T'it'q'et Administration above), and gordondick.ca (St'at'imc (Lillooet people)). I am not actually saying the article shouldn't be moved back to the proposed title (I don't really care). But I can't allow it when the only arguments that have been presented are ad hominem attacks (you have called Kwami a "racist" at least once) and cherrypicked Google hits. The argument that because it is an indigenous group in what is now Canada means we should use "Canadian English" is weak, at best, and the claim that their own name for themselves is "Canadian English" rather than a word in the St'at'imc language, is flawed. Even if you had presented some Canadian government sources that proved "St'at'imc" and not "Lillooet" is their official name in Canada, your argument that this is a WP:ENGVAR issue would still be weak. I have already demonstrated that Canadian sources -- including First Nations groups and universities -- readily use both names interchangeably, so please make some better arguments, and stop calling those who disagree with you on this issue "racist". Hitomaro742 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was Kwami sounded like a racist and indeed the whole "not English" rants that were going on here were very much what you'd hear from the "One Country, One People, One Law" folks, and that natives should behave like a conquered people and assimilate. If you're unaware of that, you're unaware of the political and cultural realities that led to the evolution and adoption of the new names. And your contention that the Canadian English thing is trivial is very much a non-Canadian viewpoint, it's not trivial to us at all. And as for the LTC, they haven't changed their registration-name with Indian and Northern Affairs, but their choice of url is very obviously statimc.net and not lillooet.net or lillooet.ca. Those "St'at'imc/Stl'atl'imx (aka Lillooet people)" mentions are not proof that's the common name, instead they're a demonstration of the ongoing deprecation of the older and increasingly less-in-use term. Government cites? haven't you even looked at the government citations I took all that time to link while looking for the irrelevant pronunciation guide? All of you are sounding incredibly parochial about this, whether parochial about Canadian English or about what you say should be the common name, but no longer is. "St'at'imc" without diacriticals is used in English all the time, and not just by the St'at'imc themselves....it's an accepted word/name in English now, and avoids the complications of saying "Lillooet Indians" which are too many to re-list again. That the natives alone using it are ALL native English speakers doesn't seem to penetrate any of your noggins, or that how they choose to call themselves should trump anything fielded from popular histories or older ethnographies.....IMO van Eijk did a disservice to their linguistic cause by titling his book as he did. And again, the views dismissive of what their government sites use and what is now standard in Big Government-speak, including the St'at'imc Hydro agreement and any number of documents and reports from that government source, likewise Ministry of Forests and other ministries and agencies, just doesn't seem to get through to you by what you're saying. Asking me for cites already provided is a tiresome game here. The complication of the meaning of "Lillooet" are the big issue here; there's no vagueness at ALL about "St'at'imc".....between the District of Lillooet, region of the same name, the individual band (which no longer uses Lillooet Indian Band for itself and avoids that term to avoid confusion), the "Old Lillooet" of Mt Currie (which is "Lil'wat), Lillooet Lake/River and the Lower Lillooet peoples (who use "Lower Stl'atl'imx for their tribal council name), "Lillooet" is just not usable with any clarity anymore and that's why the change came about. That it's also seen by some natives as a colonialist imposition is another big reason. What people in the "outside world" and outside Canada call them doesn't mean it's appropriate that Wikipedia should ignored their own preferred usage, and that now standard in non-native governance and media, is ridiculous. Like saying that Sami should be changed to Lapp because that's "most common" even though it's a derisive.Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have learnt your lesson: I am not parochial -- I'm a native English speaker who specializes in classical Japanese literature, a subject I doubt you know anything about because you are more interested in your own local, parochial interests -- but you continue to name-call. I would be perfectly happy to see this page moved, but you and most others seem reluctant to provide any valid sources. You insist that the current title is a basically racist name imposed on the people by outsiders, despite the evidence I have found that indicates the group themselves, while they might give prominence to St'at'imc, also have no problem with Lillooet. There also seems to be a tide in favour of "restoration" of this page to its previous title, as though Kwami's WP:BOLD move six months ago was inherently bad because it was WP:BOLD, indicating a clear contempt for Wikipedia policy on the part of those in favour of the move. I have no problem whatsoever with using this ethnic group's endonym, as it does appear in reliable English sources, but the lack of any reasonable arguments presented in the move's favour made me suspicious. In your initial nomination you made an obviously disingenuous representation of Google hits as being 40:1, disregarding the fact that almost all of your "St'at'imc" results assumed you were misspelling the word "static", and then when asked to provide some kind of reliable source that indicates widespread acceptance of the endonym you cited one Huffington Post article that happens to use the name. You then found one more article. Neither I nor anyone else has argued that the proposed title is not used, but you have made out-there claims that the current title is in some way racist/offensive/dated, without citing a single source to back up this claim. (Additionally, can I suggest you amend your proposed title in accordance with WP:ETHNICGROUP? I might support a move to St'at'imc people if some evidence were provided, but I will never support a move to St'at'imc, which should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect.) Hitomaro742 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply' "Reluctant to provide reliable sources"???? WTF? What the hell then are these peoples' own pages and the Hydro cite and articles in media that use this term? And as for "local, parochial" this is about Canadian usage, not about Lillooet-area usage alone. That you could even say that despite the plethora of resources I've already researched and linked says you have some bad perception problems, and the ongoing attitude that Canadian and local usages aren't "good enough" is extremely parochial.Skookum1 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see sources that use the proposed title -- often in conjunction with the current title, implying that "Lillooet" is the more recognized name -- but no sources that specifically state that there is a problem (as you keep claiming) with the current title. Additionally, your argument a few sections above that "St'at'imc people" is redundant is just plain out-of-touch with Wikipedia policy: it's redundant in a different language, but not in English, and so is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and similarly "redundant" titles like Ainu people (literally "human beings people"). Hitomaro742 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's good reason articles like Anishinaabe and others don't have it, but your mind is clearly closed on the mountain primacy or native-endonym usages like that in our country; your argument about bracketed mentions of the old term "Lillooet people" after St'at'imc is specious and also evasive and it's obvious that St'at'imc is given first because it is the MODERN primary usage. Perhaps you'd care to support changing Heiltsuk to its "most common" form Bella Bella people?? Most common thirty years ago.....the way you people cherrypick apart and misinterpret/misrepesent citations without knowing anything about the places in question or giving a s**t about what they use is beyond ridiculous and chauvinistic, wrap yourself in Wiki guidelines all you want; these articles were moved without consensus and the consensus in past discussions in other WikiProjects than your own (IPNA, WPCAN, WPOR and others) and were clearly controversial and highly questionable. But your mind is closed, any cite I will provide you'll tell me isn't good enough for you. But I have yet to see anything proving that "Lillooet people" is the current most-common usage and that it somehow has a place supplanting the correct name of these people. The Lillooet-as-colonial imposition citation you want is in st'at'imc.net or uslces.org sites somewhere; laughable that a native name that's too confusing to have remained current has been replaced by an authentic usage in modern usage because of that exact problem. Lillooet is cognate with "Lil'wat". "Indian Band" is also common, and still in use by some bands, but it's not the common modern usage" which is "First Nation". Imposition of definitions upon these people by outside academics and editors is much-resented across the board; you think you're not parochial because you deal with Japanese topics; but you're parochial about this, if you can't see that, I'm not the only one here who does. No point in raising the impact on the FN categories of all these undiscussed changes, are you going to enjoy the CfDs that your support of Kwami's cause is going to bring? I write on these people's subjects all the time....none of you do. This whole CfD was just to strip the diacriticals to the English usage of St'at'imc from the St'at'imcets version that was there i.e. in the catname.......and now the linguistics crowd is tooth and fang out to stop me, and they don't care anything about thet impacts on content of other articles or on the categories problems...that's the problem with specialists, they only think their own way, and look askance on anyone who won't play their game. This whole RM is a travesty now, cite after cite provided, and yet this picayune quibbling over what's in common use by people who don't even use the term or know anything about these people or the places in question. Give your head a shake.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of posting long comments in which you refer to your fellow Wikipedians (who have made no personal remarks against you throughout this entire dispute, as far as I can see) "you people", and violate WP:AGF by assuming I have some kind of racist motivation, you try citing sources that actually say the things you claim to say. I have now on multiple occasions expressed my willingness to change my !vote to support if you were to cite some source that indicated any of the following: (1) "Lillooet" is considered offensive or otherwise unacceptable by the people themselves; (2) the endonym of an ethnic minority indigenous to a particular modern state that happens to have English as its official language actually qualifies as meeting WP:ENGVAR as far as that policy goes; (3) my above Google hits don't indicate that a significant portion of Canadians use the names interchangeably; or (4) "St'at'ic" is more common in reliable sources. Seriously. I will withdraw my oppose !vote if you meet any of these criteria. Of course, I shouldn't be expected to take you seriously if you keep using insulting language like you have in your last several posts: cut that out as well. Hitomaro742 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tell that to Kwami about insulting language, and others here who have behaved just like him. As for (1) it's considered inaccurate which is what St'at'imc has come to be used to replace it; some St'at'imc regard it as offensive, mostly because "white people imposed it on them at the time of the town's renaming in 1960. (2) According to other Canadians here (and montanabw who is not Canadian), such terms are now the accepted norm in official uses; ask the local MLA or MP or Mayor what they use. Ask the regional district, ask the Ministry of Forests, or Fortis BC who have a power plant on Cayoosh Creek and have to deal with the bands on a regular basis what they use. And in the St'at'imc Nation's view, and even moreso among radicals within their people, they are a sovereign state and have never surrendered to the Crown that (if you don't know about Canadian Land Claims issues that's too long a tale to be told here); others like that are, notably, the Nuxalk. User:LiliCharlie also pointed out the "strong national sentiment" item which is wherever. (4) your "interchangeable" cites include those which put St'at'imc first and put Lillooet people/language in brackets and often will also say "formerly" instead of "aka".Skookum1 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't frankly care what "Canadians here" say. Wikipedians are not reliable sources, and for all you know both myself and Kwami are Canadians, and for all I know you are lying about being Canadian. (Note: I do not mean that as a personal insult -- I just mean that the opinions of individual Wikipedians are frankly irrelevant here.) I also note that, despite your not giving me a single source throughout my entire discussion with you, you insist that I am probably too closed-minded to accept any hypothetical sources you might cite. I find your insinuation that those of us who do not regularly edit articles in WikiProject Canada should be banned from participating in RMs like this, even when you have not presented a single shred of evidence other than personal attacks against your opponents, offensive. I have nothing more to say here. My !vote stands, but I have no more intention to attempt to engage you in adult discussion. Hitomaro742 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you got some kind of problem....nobody said non-Canadians should be banned from these RMs, only that Canadian English should prevail on Canadian articles, and that other Canadians here are well-familiar with these terms, and cites have been provided for each and every one of the points you're claiming I haven't provided cites for, as well as responses. You're not the one being adult, IMO, and once again we have the situation of someone not acknowledging cites already presented and putting words in my mouth. I've answered all of your four points, Pfly has provided that excellent essay from the Translation Bureau about the ascendance and modern use of these terms, and all you can do is ignore it and posture about my supposed immaturity, and have dismissed all notion of respecting all that has been said by way of posturing about my SUPPOSED failure to provide cites.......you're ridiculous and being pompous about things you refuse to read or acknowledge. Pffft.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support move, though perhaps to Stl'atl'imx rather than St'at'imc. This, Stl'atl'imx, is the name used by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition, 2004, Oxford University Press (which I can access online through the Seattle Library). Here is the entry they have:

Stl'atl'imx /ˈstatliːəm/

1. a member of an Aboriginal people living in southwestern BC, northeast of Vancouver.
2. the Salishan language of this people.

usage: Formerly called Lillooet.

I have found it tricky finding sources online that talk about the ongoing process of ethnonym change in British Columbia and Canada in general. This process has been developing for decades and shows no sign of abating. For many peoples the name changes were easy and quickly accepted in general, such as Eskimo->Inuit, Micmac->Mi’kmaq. In British Columbia the names desired by the indigenous peoples tend to "seem impenetrable to anglophones" (as the page I link below puts it) and some have proven slower to become the norm than others. Stl'atl'imx (Lillooet), Secwepemc (Shuswap), and Nlaka'pamux (Thompson) are examples of this. Other, equally "impenetrable" names have definitively become standard, such as Nisga'a, Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka), and Kwakwaka'wakw (formerly Kwakiutl). These points and the topic is discussed here, in an article by the editor of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. While she admits that "it remains to be seen how successful" Stl'atl'imx and other names will be in English, due to their "un-Englishness", she points out that the indigenous insistence on such "un-English" names is part of the whole point—that the former names are linked to colonial oppression and the new, "correct" names to the ongoing Aboriginal renaissance in Canada. I'd also note that this article was published in 2003, so her comment "it remains to be seen" is now a decade in the past.

Finally, as for these indigenous ethnonyms being "correct", here is a source I found interesting. The Kids Book of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, is a Canadian book about Canadian indigenous people, written for kids, published in 2012. In the Introduction, on page 5, it says "We have made every attempt to use the correct names of the peoples, rather than the names given to them by others...At the start of each section we also show the names they were once called by others, like this: Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka)." And on page 13 it says "Stl'atl'imx (Lillooet)". Now I realize one source hardly proves a common name, but I find it telling that this is a book written to teach children, and plainly says it uses "the correct names". Further, I'm skeptical about attempts to determine "common name", especially Google searches of various kinds. The shift from colonial to indigenous ethnonyms in Canada is an ongoing process, a "moving target". Most sources out there are not up to date. Some are dreadfully out of date. We want to use what the common name is now. Pfly (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes, but how do you determine what is the common name now? Limiting GBooks to 2000-2013, I get 6 hits for "St'at'imc people"[1] (not counting reprints of WP articles) and 25 hits for "Lillooet people".[2] There's also a lot of dual use, as you found in your children's book, suggesting that the endonym by itself is insufficient for a general audience. The Dictionary of Upriver Halkomelem from 2009 has an entry for "Lillooet people", and Van Eijk's The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax from 2011 speaks of the "Lillooet people" as well.[3] Van Eijk worked with Kinkade at UBC, was a visiting scholar at UVic, and has worked with the Mount Currie Community School and the Lillooet Tribal Council, so he should be aware of any issues associated with the name. (At least now we have a ref that St'at'imc has an English pronunciation, which helps.) — kwami (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The First Peoples Cultural Council website HERE, which is a crown corporation (government/publicly-owned i.e. a government-type source) distinguishes in its First Voices pages between [Lil'wat http://www.firstvoices.com/en/Lilwat] (their term for their group is "Lil'wat7úl people") and and "Northern St'at'imc". The same site has Secwepemc and items on the two dialects of Secwepmectsin and also, of course, Ktunaxa. Their page on the Nlaka'pamux uses another spelling but also [http://www.firstvoices.com/en/nlekepmxcin is about the [scw̓éxmx (People of the Creeks), i.e. the Nlaka'pamux subgroup who are part of the alliance of peoples known as the Nicola people (that may redirect to "Nicola Athapaskans" or something like that; there Nicola Tribal Association (Alliance?) includes the Okanagan-speaking Spahomin (native spelling spa7omin) who also live in the area/are intermarried with them. Other than the Cook's Ferry Band at Spences Bridge, these people do not live on the Thompson River and do not go by the term "Thompson people"....I think I created an article Scw'exmx about this subgroup, not sure if that's the same spelling. Point is that "Lil'wat7úl people" is what's cognate with "Lillooet people" and that the broader usage "St'at'imc", under whichever spelling, is accepted throughout these peoples, whereas "Lillooet" has its complications both because of the town/river/band but also that it really refers to only one subgroup. St'at'imc refers to them all.Skookum1 (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just received a reply from author and reporter Terry Glavin, who used to write for the Vancouver Sun and is a very notable writer on First Nations and other aboriginal issues. This is a direct quote from his reply: "What a profoundly exotic line of argument, and against this? "The St'at'imc, Tshilqot'in, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa and Nlaka'pamux names, if not so much Skwxwu7mesh, are now a standard part of Canadian English and the accepted norms." That sentence is completely and unambiguously and (one would have thought) uncontroversially true. These (except for perhaps Skwxwu7mesh, I don't specifically recall) were the correct spellings at the Vancouver Sun while I was covering aboriginal affairs more than 20 years ago for goodness sake. The Vancouver Sun isn't exactly a linguistics newsletter." The profoundly exotic line of argument he's referring to is the "it's not English because nobody knows how to pronounce it" and "we don't do official names" criticisms of the proposed version(s). Also received a note from my CBC reporter contact that the CBC's name/pronunciation system is an internal database and can't be linked/quoted easily. Still awaiting word from the Counsel-General (who's back at work today) and CTV. But between federal and provincial government citations and documents, two or three crown corps, munis/RDs and the government sites of the peoples themselves, I have yet to see any citation proving the other claim that the archaic/discredited names are "most common" or that "these terms don't belong in English-language Wikipedia". I've also asked my contact at the St'at'imc language office who offered to have Jan van Eijk comment.....not yet, but it's just the start of the week....and since he works for them, i.e. the Upper St'at'imc Language Education and Services office, which is part of St'at'imc Nation operations, i doubt very much he'll agree with those who are using his book title to "prove" that "Lillooet people" is more common....quite the opposite. The same would doubtless be true of linguists working with or for the Secwepemc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in and Ktunaxa.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also very relevant to these matters, and though Wikipedia is not bound by UN declarations, Article 31 of the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples deals with language and culture issues and calls for respecting the wishes and such of indigenous peoples about those issues; I can find a direct quote if need be, but suffice to say there's an international standard about this that Wikipedia should heed.......Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think we should, then you can organize drawing up a guideline to advise that. But it doesn't do much good as a one-off argument: It should be applied Wiki-wide if it's going to be applied at all. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who's been making "one-off arguments", that's your job. The UN Dec is only ancillary and has only moral suasion behind it; and guidelines on native names yes have to be developed, but not if all of government sources, native-governments sources, cultural institutions and "what the people themselves prefer" are discounted as they have been throughout these RMs. And though it will be interesting to see what Jan van Eijk has to say, why it is that a white linguist's opinion might carry more weight than that of a native person is a very curious notion in the context of current First Nations political and cultural realities.Skookum1 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've received a reply about these matters from the BC Attorney General's ministry's Legislative Program Coordinator in the Office of the Counsel General, who is responsible for the government's style and usage guide. I'll quote it verbatim rather than try to summarize it, and she pretty much covers all the ground, including cites, I've already posted here and elsewhere.
As we know, orthography is a system used to standardize how a particular language is written. The problem with aboriginal languages has a lot to do with three things. The first is that the aboriginal peoples did not have a written language, it was all oral and their history was passed down through their stories. The second point is missionaries were the ones to write down the language. They created the written form while sitting there and listening, and applied this method to all aboriginal languages . While this is not entirely accurate, I would suggest that phonetics sometimes had their place, as has Anglicization of words. The third point is that though some have adopted the international phonetic alphabet, there are many in British Columbia that have their own orthographies. There is an interesting description of “current” versus “other” names at this page: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/language_index_other
The B.C. Government, through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry of Education, has recognized the rights of First Nations to develop and educate their children in traditional languages. A common goal in B.C. and other jurisdictions is promote self-government. Of interest to this issue would be these pages—
In addition, when my office is working with aboriginal names and naming, it is necessary to have the orthographic character as used by that aboriginal peoples. While my office works with Queen’s Printer for this, we do often refer to sites like this one to find what we need: http://www.languagegeek.com/index.html The purpose, of course, is respect for the First Nations peoples language and sensitivities. This is often a negotiated thing, particularly with parks, conservancies and reserves.
There is a statute that guides British Columbia: First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act, see section 6. Under this Act is the establishment of the First Peoples’ Cultural Council. The website for the Crown Corporation: http://www.fpcc.ca/, I think you will find this page most interesting: http://www.fpcc.ca/about-us/Publications/
And if you’re looking for examples of usage of regionalism, go to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, where you will find names that identify parks, conservancies and reserves that are in both regional and aboriginal references.

From that point on she lists park names that exist either in both languages (whichever language it is), legally and formally, and some that have only native names; it's a set of HTML boxes, most reflected already in Category:Provincial parks of British Columbias many titles. If anyone needs "proof" of this email or thinks I fictionalized it, "email this user" and I will gladly forward it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of current usage, and I didn't listen closely enough to see if they speaker says "St'at'imc" (ambient yard-noise around me right now, i.e. lawnmower) but note that the "Lillooet Declaration" of 1913, which this is the centenary celebration of, is now referred to as the "St'at'imc Declaration", this video was posted by the Bridge River-Lillooet News today (on FB) and NB the signs in English using "St'at'imc".Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

where'd this come from? = Sƛ’aƛ’imxǝc[edit]

Been there a long time, it's seems to be "St'at'imcets' per the van Eijk orthography, though I don't know what that [c] is supposed to be, true.......where's this come from for a people name? Citation?Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPA is wrong[edit]

This ain't right - /ˈlɪluːɛt/ - it's no an "oo" sound at all, it's "oh", whatever the IPA is for that; short, yes, but not "ooh" at all.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd that IPA come from anyone? Ethnologue? A local source? Disdain for locals is already evident in the RM, but it's questionable to me that IPAs aren't cited.....as predicted the IPA specialist presiding doesn't know how this name is pronounced, despite making the silly claim that it's "English". True enough that "oo" might be heard from people looking at it who've never been there, and it may be somewhere between a schwa and an "oh", but /u/ while you do hear it, isn't how it's said locally. An -ette stress on the last syllable you do hear, in a sort of old-fashioned kind of way, though.Skookum1 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Lillooet, British Columbia page has the correct IPA - /ˈlɪloʊ.ɛt/.Skookum1 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, when you find an error, it *is* possible to post a correction without throwing a tantrum. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it is possible for you to admit mistakes without being patronizing and attacking the person pointing them out.Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I normally do. But your tantrum has been going on for nearly a week, and it's getting tiresome. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YOU calling my detailed responses a "tantrum" is what's tiresome, and just more insults and snottiness from someone who moved all these pages without consultation and with obvious disdain for other peoples, and for the peoples described themselves. Give it a rest, troll. WP:Crow pie.Skookum1 (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction to a mistake in the transcription is uncalled for, as is your apparent disdain for linguists, just cos kwami happens to be one. — Lfdder (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncalled-for at all, given all the stink he's been making about pronunciation and how this name is "obvious" in pronunciation based on his assumptions about romanizations used for aboriginal names, of which this is one. I challenged him to pronounce it, like everything else I've posted he ignored the request....it was him who was making a big stink about pronunciation, but he doesn't even know them himself......nor anything about these peoples other than what he reads in ilnguistics. I have great respect for linguists...those who respect others that is. Kwami gives no respect, and deserves none on matters like this when he can't admit a mistake and still has to use it as an occasion to pretend to some kind of intellectual authority on these matters. He's not. And if this is to be treated as "an English word" as he claimed, then he should have known how to pronounce it first if it's so "obvious". And actually, though it's OR, I'm going to ask my 20 or 30 friends in Lillooet, who are online in a history group, native and non-native, to record themselves and their friends saying both "Lillooet" and "St'at'imc", and since they use the other names like Nlaka'pamux and Secwepemc will get them to give those a whirl too......as noted before, the vowel is somewhere between a brief "oh" and a schwa; but with a schwa there's a Lill-uh-wet effect, don't know what the IPA is for the [w] sound so didn't bother amending it yet; it's my hometown, I pronounce it regularly.......and depending on cadence in a phrase, the vowel may vary....but it's never "oo" certainly not a strong "oo" if at all; when people do try to say it that way, often newcomers, they tend to make a second stress on the last syllable i.e. Lill-oo-ETTE, almost as a primary stressed syllable rather than on the first as per normal, but that's not correct; on old maps for Mt Currie (Lil'wat) you'll see Liluet-ol but that's not an IPA "u", that's an "uh"....and the -ol is "things pertaining to" like Skwxwu7mesh-ullh but I don't know the St'at'imcets spelling for that ending at the moment; think it's just -ulh but will check. "Lillooet" has too many meanings which is one reason it has fallen into disuse for the people as a whole; the dialect in Van Eijk is the Fountain dialect (Cacli'p) and is very different from what's spoken in Mt Currie and the Lower Lillooet River, so his title is more than a bit ironic. Skookum1 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're saying it's pronounced something like /ˈlɪlɵwɪt/ in casual speech, which sounds like a fairly reasonable reduction of /ˈlɪloʊ.ɛt/. — Lfdder (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the /ɪ/....is it like "ih" or more like the dotless Turkish "i"...I'll make a few recordings of myself and ask a few people tonight to donate some for review; OR yes, but this by way of trying to figure out the most suitable IPA ... and variants maybe; one old frontier-era attempt to "anglicize" the name was the poetic "Littlewhite"....interestingly the name now used by what had been the Lillooet Indian Band is T'itq'et (and no, I don't have those apostrophes in the right place; the older transliteration, the one that uses Stl'atl'imx, has that as Tlitlikt or Tl'itl'kt, something like that.....point is it means "white" as in the colour, referring to a particular cutbank's rock/clay colour. A "joke" folksy pronunciation, similar to what you'd hear for Cache Creek (Cash Crick) or Williams Lake (Billy's Puddle) is "Lillywet", usually used ironically or in reference to an "only in Lillooet" kind of matter going on.....mock names like that are somewhat common in BC; old-timers might refer to the Chilcotin is Chill-cOOten (interestingly close to the indigenous pronunciation of "Tsilhqot'in", natural enough since rancher English is very much the same arena as aboriginal English....in an area where most of the cowboys are Indians...Squamish is "Squeamish" or "Squish", the latter especially suitable because of the incredible raininess of the place (rainier than Lions Bay or even Whistler, in fact, which is amazing).Skookum1 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's an en transcription so it can't be the Turkish dotless i. It's like the i in wit. Do you mean it's like in wet? Your replies are always so long I feel bad for not having nearly as enough to say in return. lol — Lfdder (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lfdder, you are NOT being cute, so far you have insulted several editors who have, in good faith, been trying to get these pronunciations correct, and in return, you address their sincere efforts by making flippant and snarky comments. Knock it off, please. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't an insult. What are you talking about? Did you think I was doubting his pronunciation or something? You've replied to me 3 times in total, and 3 times in total you've not made a tiny bit of sense. — Lfdder (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the fourth, the other three times you called me "high." That too is an insult. You might not "think" you are insulting people but you are. What you said to Skookumq was insulting and condescending. Get a clue. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jaysus. — Lfdder (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stʼatʼimc/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.

Needs thorough expansion/revision; government article is Lillooet Tribal Council --Skookum1 (20 February 06)

Substituted at 05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stʼatʼimc&oldid=1207027958"