|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Name
- 2 Vandalism
- 3 How will this be different from Maliseet?
- 4 Answer to: How will this be different from Maliseet?
- 5 Suggestion
- 6 Dpmuk I find your comments offensive
- 7 Requested move
- 8 blatantly racist
- 9 merge
- 10 Move discussion in progress
- 11 Move discussion in progress
- 12 Requested move 2
- 13 Jenniss Family
This name, for an entire nation of people in the world, is referenced many times in various articles on the Maliseet. Maliseet is not an accurate name for the Maliseet, as it is the name that was used by the Mic Mac when referring to our people, but it is today the commonly used term. It is important to have an article mentioning this, but it requires expansion which is ongoing.
Repeated vandalisation of this article is coming from IP 18.104.22.168 which is administered by the New Brunswick Department of Education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I can see, Wolastoqiyik is a synonym for Maliseet, for which we already have an article. Could you please explain what the purpose of this additional article is and why we need? It seems to me to be a content fork. Soap Talk/Contributions 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I am Wolastoqiyik. Maliseet is a name that another nation called us (The Mic Mac). Most Wikipedia articles are using the term 'Maliseet' inappropriately. The title of the Maliseet page, if the primary reference for this nation, needs to include both terms.
At this time when you search for Wolastoqiyuk you do not find anything, as it searches only for titles of pages. Also all of the articles that have the term Maliseet should also have a reference to Wolastiqiyuk. When you click on Wolastiqiyuk anywhere in Wikipedia you should be directed to a page explaining what this is, and this is the primary reason why it is needed.
There is also the need to have pages in the language of the Wolastiqiyuk.
This page needs expansion rather then deletion.
The name is not a 'synonym'. In fact I find that, without offence intended towards the lack of understanding, a blatant reason as to why there is a need for a seperate article on the name of a nation. This name is as important in any historical records as "Great Britain", or "Germany".(WM324AHI (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
First, a technical point - by creating the redirect a search for Wolastoqiyik would go to the Maliseet page rather than returning nothing.
Second, this is the English language wikipedia so articles in the "language of the Wolastiqiyuk" would not be appropiate. Although I think that keeping a language alive is important unfortunately this is not the right place.
As for the article itself, it admits that Wolastoqiyik is another name for Maliseet there really shouldn't be an article on both as much (most) of the information will be duplicated and this is against wikipedia policy. As a simialr (but not identical) example of this Cymru, the name for Wales in the Welsh language, redirects to Wales. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so I suspect a simple explanation of a name is not enough for an article. I can understand that Wolastoqiyik might be the prefered name of the people but that doesn't mean that wikipedia needs two articles. Can I suggest that the answer may be to merge the information in this article into the Maliseet page and then move the page here (i.e. so Wolastoqiyik is the title of the page when both Wolastoqiyik and Maliseet is searched for)? I would however think that there would need to be consensus for this move possibly by citing relevant sources that Wolastoqiyik is the more appropiate name as making a decision as to which page should be the article page and which the redirect may well be contentious. As a moderately experienced wikipedia editor I'd be very surprised if both articles would be allowed to stand as they are if the consensus of the wider community was sought. Dpmuk (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Dpmuk I find your comments offensive
WM324AH1 Response: First what was written above is offensive, and it is ignorant, although I will say it does not seem to be intentionally so.
===UH+++ Offensive. I am not replying to this right now, but I will.05:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is ignorant. It is not "Another name for Maliseet" It IS the name for Maliseet. You are really very ignorant in this comment. Actually, it is not a simple explanation for a name-- it is a NATION on this planet, and if you spent the time to read about something before commenting you would know that. You want consensus? This is the name. Just ask any Wolastoqiyik person, or do you know any? I am sorry that my tone is irritated, but this is very ignorant of you. I will reply with less irritation later, once I digest what you said. If the Wolastoqiyik consulted the 'consensus' of the community we would all be, well, someplace, and we would all be speaking English (in fact we all ready do). The usage of this word in Canada and the U.S. which is the land on which you stand, likely, unless you are in another part of the world, is land that was at one time land which was of those that were Indigenous to it, and frankly the usage of our language, if it is to stay alive, is required to be adopted INTO the English language, as that is what we all speak, due to colonization. I am assuming your suggestion that our own language and name for ourselves requires the acceptance of the 'wider' community would be acceptance by those that are not Wolastoqiyik, and we have had enough of that, and for that very purpose this article will remain, as it is what we call ourselves, and it will be written by ourselves.
Furthermore who made you the determiner of what words are a part of the English language? I am an English speaker, and the name I have for my own ethnicity, as it has been passed down to me from my ancestors, is Wolastoqiyik. If you require evidence of this, why don't you call our chief?
Now, I mean no offense to you, as I realize you likely did not intend to offend, but you are touching on a very touchy subject, after 500 years of colonization, and an entire people reclaiming their culture, their language, and their rights. I will likely have a gentler, softer, approach to this response, but comments like this are very difficult to digest.
- Well as you say what I said was not meant to be intentionally offensive and I tried my best for it not to be so as it is obviously something you feel strongly about. However I think you have misunderstood me and there are several comments I'd like to make.
- Firstly by your comments above I'd assumed that Wolastoqiyik was the name used in the native language and that the English language had adopted a different word (in a similar way to how English uses Germany and German uses Deutschland) - see WP:NCON for a discussion of naming conventions. Now I could understand why a different word may be offensive to you but as an English language enyclopedia we use English words hence my comments. If as you state Wolastoqiyik is used in English then my arguement is moot. I am not pretending to be the determiner of what words are parts of English I'd just obviously got the wrong idea - largely from your own comments.
- Secondly as I stated above I will happily admit to not being informed enough to decide which page should have the main article and which the redirect, but from your comments even you suggest that both Wolastoqiyik and Maileet refer to the same entity and wikipedia does not have two articles on the same entity. I'm sorry if this offends you but that's how wikipedia is (at the moment WP:MM is the only palce I can find anything like a mention of this policy but I find wikipedia to be badly oreganised when it comes to policies so I suspect there's something better).
- The following is not ture - "I am assuming your suggestion that our own language and name for ourselves requires the acceptance of the 'wider' community would be acceptance by those that are not Wolastoqiyik." You, and anyone else, are perferctly entitled to call yourself what you want. However wikipedia works on consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) and this includes getting consensus on the name of articles and when redirects should exist instead - and this is what I'm trying to get by this discussion. If you read the consensus policy and related articles you're realise that your thoughts will probably carry more weight but that consensus is still how wikipedia operates.
- Finally I'm British not American - I find it a little offensive that you'd automatically assume I was American.
- Hope that clears things up for you a bit. In general I'm trying to remain neutral on what name should be used etc (so I'd hope you take no offense) etc while trying to satisfy wikiepdia policies that there shouldn't be two articles on essentially the same subject - as there currently are. Dpmuk (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"The growing community of Scottish-Canadian frontiersmen were likely to take First Nation wives, as there were few European women in the area."
This sentence comes across as blantantly racist. Why is the person who wrote this assuming that these frontiersmen 'only' took First Nation's wives becaues there were few European women? Is it possible that these men actually were attracted to the beauty that many of the women had, and what evidence to you have to make such a statement- it is ignorant.
It is possible that what you are saying might have some truth, but it has a tone I do not like. Can you please edit. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (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 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 2
The following was placed into the body of the article: "FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORDS, the Jenniss family name has never been associated with the Original 14 Clans of Viger, listed on the 1869 list of families at Viger/Cacouna, and therefore, the Jenniss name has been permanently deleted from the family names listed above. Their family does not show up anywhere on the 1869 Viger List of Clans." Besides being phrased as a rant, the topic is already covered in the body. If there is a controversy, it needs discussion here - not in the article. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)