This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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: Not moved. It appears that Skookum1 may be rethinking his proposal. No objection to a new RM if anyone believes something can be done here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 9 April 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) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't hold any discussion when you were the one who MOVED those "thousands" of titles (2000, 3000, 4000?) that you are now trying to WP:OWN your self-wrought titles for. The principles exist, the guidelines already exist, you just refuse to admit anything and are now trying to shut down discussion to prevent reversion to original titles, even ones that are only redirects to the current title which you rammed down everyone's throats.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412T 02:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment I've been pondering this one, as I know some Warm Springs people ("individuals who are Warm Springs indigenous persons") and noting that this was moved from that title to this one, citing "use the title in ethnographic sources" the section of TITLE saying "the interests of readers should be put before those of specialists". In most US cases, unlike Canada, the dominant anglicism is the most common name in English (e.g. Muckleshoot, Snohomish and many others), and here the dominant anglicism is "Warm Springs" and the title Tenino people infers "individuals who are from Tenino, Washington. Reliable sources here should not be limited to ethnography or linguistics as if that's all there was.Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Because the RM is underway, I won't move this to Tenino peoples given that Warm Springs tribe redirects here; there are three distinct people on the Warm Springs websites named, with the Sahaptin group's name not even appearing Tenino. This is not an "FOO (endonym)" case but rather a title spawned by specialists in certain fields. Even so, as a standalone name it is the source/origin of all other titles on Tenino and UNDAB, though only an essay, still articulates what is said TITLE and and elsewhere about proper disambiguation practices.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Despite extensive efforts, the three languages of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Oregon are in danger of becoming lost languages. The Kiksht (Wasco), only have five fluent speakers, all elders, left in our area. The Numu (Paiute), have only five fluent speakers, and the Ichishkiin (Sahaptin) have about fifty speakers. There are no fluent speakers under the age of fifty. It is extremely important for the Warm Springs people to come together and strive for our languages to again become the first languages of our children."
which also has this interesting quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, which emphasizes the importance of language as part of a group's identity; a remind that current language articles are sorely lacking in more-than-specialist content and sadly still titled according to the usages prevalent in specialist fields rather than in the vernacular of readers in the areas concerned, indigenous or otherwise:
""Language is a solemn thing, it grows out of life, out of its agonies, and its ecstasies, its wants and its weariness. Every language is a temple in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined."
So .... obviously the Warm Springs redirect shouldn't come here; and I'm surprised to not see the indigenous name in this article given above here so far.....it seems obvious to a modern person who's not only reading the corpus of linguistics and ethnography texts that what these people have to say about themselves today should be given greater weight, per TITLE's admonition about general readership vs. the interests and priorities of specialists......that they are equally RS, especially their official sites like that one, and are superior in nature re nomenclature to academic-only masses of cites used to claim "PRIMARYTOPIC"....Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I have concerns that this article is not the primary topic of Tenino. Tenino, Washington receives twice the number of hits as Tenino people (In Feb, 232 hits for Tenino people and 651 for Tenino, Washington). Throw in the fact that Tenino (sternwheeler) is itself notable (117 hits in Feb) and it would seem the current practice is best.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Skookum, your comments at Talk:Squamish seem to suggest you think cities should be primary topic versus ethnic groups, and Labattblueboy shows that the city in Washington is getting more views, at least. Why do you think the ethnic group is primary here? --BDD (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, interesting you should ask that, as "Tenino" is, per Carrite's move from Warms Springs tribes did say this: " Changes modern colloquial name to the name favored by anthropologists", which is contrary to title. This listing was because of the "FOO people" construct; having looked at the background to this title, and noting TITLE's admonishment that the interests of general readers should come before those of specialists, that was an incorrect move from "Warm Springs [something]". "tribes" is incorrect in terms of US/IPNA terminological usage as all four groups are under one tribal government; "Tenino" is not in use in general English, unless you happen to be reading anthropology, people in Tenino, WA probably have not heard it, and would know these peoples as "the Warm Springs Indians", though they might know to refer to the individual groups by their usual names, Tygh, Wyam etc......so at this point, as observed above, Tenino is a specialists' only usage and should not have been the title in the first place, never mind adding "people" when there are four peoples in this group (which is the kind of thing that happens when the person who did the drive-by renaming didn't even stop to read the article). So at this point, and not knowing how to revise the nomination, this should be moved to "Warm Springs [something]", whatever something might best be; COMMONNAME should prevail, not the terminology of a specialist field alone.Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I could close this as no consensus and you could start a new request. If it sidesteps this ethnic group/language conflict, it may be easier to build consensus for it anyway. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
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.