Template talk:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

More feedback for Pete[edit]

ummmmmmm. I guess the discussion is moving here? Anyway, as far as Oregon goes, here are my random thoughts. There are List of Native American Tribal Entities in Oregon, which lists the nine federally-recognized tribal governments in Oregon. If you want to leave the U.S. gov't out of it, then go with the individual peoples that make up those entities--not all of those have been included. See also Category:Native American tribes in Oregon and List of Indian reservations in Oregon (which you've linked). Washington has many more recognized tribes and governments than Oregon, and I'm not sure you want to even tackle BC or if this should just be for the Northwestern United States, though the idea of ignoring modern boundaries is a good one. The Indian termination policy affected Oregon tribes adversely and the fight to restore recognition is ongoing. See List of United States treaties#U.S. Native American treaties, but note that it's incomplete for the the latter part of the 19th century, and the 1855 mess. As far as regions, my Oregon Archaeology/Anthropology class covered these regions and peoples [referencing the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians for the premodern history and the now-updated Oregon Council for the Humanities' The First Oregonians for the modern, which I have in reprints. Yes, I've been holding out on you]: Great Basin (Northern Paiute), Plateau (Klamath and Modoc, Wasco, Wishram and Cascades, Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla, Nez Perce, and Molala), Northwest Coast and/or Western Interior (Kalapuyans, Athapaskans of Southwestern Oregon (Umpqua, Coquille, Chasta, Galice, Applegate, Tututni, and more), Takelma, Chinookans of the Lower Columbia, Tillamook, Alseans, and Siuslawans and Coosans), and California (Tolowa, and Shastan Peoples). More later, I'm tired, but don't forget Chief Comcomly, Kintpuash and Toby Riddle. Then there's Sealth and many more from Washington. Katr67 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And Chief Dan George, Maquinna, Nicola, Maquinna, Wickaninnish, August Jack Khatsahlano, Spintlum, Klatassine, Chief Hunter Jack, Simon Gunanoot and yet more in BC....and that's only the distinguished names....I gotta get around to writing Slumach (or hope someone else does, my book on him's back in BC...).Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a heckuva list, on top of what Skookum came up with. Some I had found, some not. In a way, it makes me want to just say fine, we'll delete mine...but on the other hand, in kind of underscores the need for navboxes to organize and unify some of this stuff. If that much escaped my notice, I think it's partly because the articles are not fully interlinked, and there aren't navboxes or "umbrella articles" that help those of us new to the subject get a bird's eye view of how everything fits together.
So, clearly, my first stab leaves a lot to be desired -- but is it a foundation worth building on, or should it just be pitched? -Pete (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, found ya....went to OMR's "Indigenous"-ly worded template as that terminology is, er, politically acceptable ("native peoples" isn't). Anyway here's what I'd written on OregonTalk just when the announcmenet to make for the template talk pages was made; I'd put this somewhere else first:
It's for situatiosn/milieux like this that I suggested somewhere a Wiki TaskForce comprising the Indgn/BC/OR/WA/ID/MT/YT/AK WikiProjects; we've already discovered the benefits of cross-border info exchange on the various Columbia Basin articles/templates and I keep on finding bits from one article or story on one side of the border which add to the article on the other side; it's what I was saying about the inextricability of BC's history from the adjacent states'.....now, about this 49th thing, you're making exactly the same argument I made to OldManRivers but he's having none of it; cultural appropriateness is the issue and the unity of the {{Coast Salish}} peoples to him is very important; the boundary is an imposition on him and his people, in his view. He's half-{{Kwakwaka'wakw}} and very passionate about that heritage also, but the "Kwak'wala-speakers" aren't partitioned, although they do have imposed on them colonially-mandated governments without validity in the traditional culture. A culture which is still the facts on teh ground up in those parts, by the way....anyway, I've gotten OMR to soften things like using aboriginal spelling across the board, even for US-side tribes whose own often-self-written pages use the anglicized form; I can't link to all our debates about this but I did get the {{Coast Salish}} template to use the "white man spelling" for Muckleshoot and Duwamish instead of .... well, you know what it looks like in Lushootseed, right? He and I are good Wiki friends/colleagues now, but it all started somewhere at Talk:Squamish people or Talk:Squamish Nation or Talk:Skwxwu7mesh; all I could do in that instance (to win) was to say if the Native American contributors who wrote and added those pages prefer the one spelling over the one you want as correct, who are you to say? I think you'll find our 49th Parallel discussion on Template talk:Coast Salish or Template talk:Coast Salish in British Columbia maybe....or...long ago there was {{First Nations on Vancouver Island}} I think it was; but "to get it right" the Island didn't work as a defining parameter for the situation; separate culture/ethnic-group templates did; same as the Lower Mainland peoples are interconnected with the Southeast Island peoples, the Lummi and Clallam are tied to the Saanich and Songhees and Twana, the Squamish to teh Nooksack; yes, we imposed different systems and even names on them - that's reflected already in our cat hierarchies, by the way - but in terms of navigation templates that make cultural sense - and won't alienate the people(s) who might drop by (we need their contributions and respect, not "oh this is just stupid white people etc") - it's their call about how to group them. There's already another dcouple of border-spanning templates i made a while back {{Okanagan Nation Alliance}} and, I think, {{Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council}}, but those are "government" templates and not inclusive of peoples, communities, languages, subarticles et al; I think there's a good {{Ktunaxa}} template now, though only a few articles as yet; there's a series of experimental templates OMR and I mucked around with; I made {{Nlaka'pamux}} and {{Secwepemc}} and related ones; now I see how to expand them, on the model of OMR's {{Kwakwaka'wakw}} one....btw I've always liked some of your Oregon templates; a bit large at times but I'd say it clued me/us in about their usefulness and visual potential; same with infoboxes and such, which are nice to see cropping up on pages I launched.....anyway I'll dig out a talkpage or two, probably something in my talkpage archives for sure, also...I've been meaning to do teh Plateau one, but didn't know where southwards to "cut it off", and ditto out through the Gorge of the Columbia; as much as the Chinook were a coastal people and interconnected with the other great canoe cultures to hte north, they were also a river people and hill country people and interconnected southwards as well as into the Columbia Plateau in a way their northward counterparts just didn't, especially north of Puget Sound. I guess I could statt it and ask for guidance southwards/westwards/eastwards; And I'm long-overdue, come to think of it, to write a teimline for the Pacific Northwest section of Indian Wars....anyway, back to steamboats ;->...Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Merge" discussion[edit]

AFAIK there's no "merge" process for templates, otherwise I'd place merge tempaltes here and on Template:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast; the Oregon Native template maybe could be broadened in scope and retitled re the Interior/Plateau, and I'm not sure as to "the culture area" they should be aligned with; perhaps California as well as the Great Basin and teh Plateau ?? I know OMR, as an "i.p." (indigenous person) from the coastal cultures feels they should be on a distinct template, but he wasn't sure how far south to take it. With the Plateau peoples I usually find the cut-off to the Subarctic kind of arbitrary, i.e. the Athapaskan-Salishan "divide" - as the Tslihqot'in and Dakelh/Carrier/Wet'su-we'ten have more shared cultural elements with their coastal and southward neighbours than the more "bush" peoples northwards, who are less numerous and "more like" their kin in the Yukon and NWT - all are "Dine" or "Dene", and will be on {{Denendeh}} when "we" finally ge4t around to it; but I think the central-BC Athapaskans "belong" on the same template as the Plateau (well, they are on the Plateau....). Anyway, again, back to steamboats. Skookum1 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Skookum makes me out to be a popular person around here. Well, I'm one of, like, 3 people who've been working on Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. I created that template with Washington and Oregon in mind. Like wikipedia is supposed to be: a collaboration. Most of the work I've been doing I've purposely left open ended for others to contribute to also. My recommendation is to merge them somehow. This template is obviously US-centric, like most things written about indigenous people on wikipedia. There are specific things where I'll call out as American POV, especially things to boarder and US-politics stuff. Where it's appropriate, like tribal-governance and Nation-State laws/histories intersecting with the indigenous people, of course it should reflect that in a NPOV. But, as Skookum referenced from what I say, the boarder is imposed, and culturally, geographically, historically, there was no boarder. Inflicting a boarder paradigm on the article is POV. I think most would agree? (I hope.) Anyways, perhaps we could work together on the template I started and also on this page too. I'll be honest, Coast Salish south of the boarder is a bit of a blank to me. (So is northern Coast Salish actually). And I imagine there are others places where contributions and collaborations would be awesome. Thanks anyways, that's my two cents. OldManRivers (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Note about Coast Salish. It shouldn't affect a borderless template, but FYI I believe it was determined that the Coast Salish culture didn't actually extend into Oregon, but that a couple of the languages were considered branches of the Salishan language? Tillamook was one, I think. I can't remember which of the interrelated pages it was, one of language pages maybe. There was something about removing Oregon-related cats and/or project templates from the page in question. I'll see if I can find the diffs/discussion... Katr67 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be just the Tillamook/Nehalem, don't think there's any further south; in Costello's 1909 book he mentions them in passing as still-existing, not sure the historical continuity there; the Chinooks were, in most accounts, part of the NW Coast culture and closely connected socially/politically to the Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah, although their art/society/lore I'm not sure has much in common with those northwards; Chehalis and Quinaults are the Salishan "grey area", but those northward from the Chehalis seem to be part of the same cultural ecumene as the Georgia Strait/Lower Mainland/South Island peoples.Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but you are popular, OMR, with those of us who are familiar with your excellent work (albeit with IPOV lots of times - "indigenous point of view" vs APOV="American Point of View", BPOV="British point of view" and CPOV="Canadian Point of View", each of which I've used at different times). I think here might be a good place to field Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Northwest Coast etc. (a regional subgroup of the IndProj - see {{NorthAmNative}} Anishinaabe working group for an example.Skookum1 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem if my edits are called POV, as long as it's understood that it's a problem that can be fixed. Of course my edits on this topic reflect my point of view; its' the only point of view I have. I assure you, any absence of Canadian point of view in my editing simply reflects that I don't know much about it. I've never been to western Canada, unfortunately. Doesn't mean I don't like it, or think it shouldn't be represented on Wikipedia.
I like the idea of doing some kind of merge, but I think the big question is: How to divide stuff up? Do we do a single navbox for all native peoples west of the Rockies, north of the Klamath Mts, and south of the Fraser River? (which is, very roughly speaking, what I was attempting.) Or do we subdivide that region? East and west of the Cascades? Or something else entirely? I'm sure there's no perfect answer, but if we chose any answer, we can get to work. Suggestions? -Pete (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, my idea is to do one or mutlple navboxes. I like some of the things you have on yours like "Court cases and treaties" and "Armed conflicts" and "Modern issues". Obviously these would be an issue when coming to things that are very specific to the country like the Delgamukw court case which set a president in Canada over Aboriginal title and other things like British Columbia Treaty Process. If we want to, we can just leave the politics out of it, make the political issues it's own navbox distinct to the country. Myself and Skookum went through this with the individual tribes/nations. We decided best to seperate the (first)nation from cultural-people. Similar to there being a difference between Government of United States of America and America. Maybe we can create three navboxes, one for all cultural-people stuff, and two others for political things distinct to each others respective country. (*Note: Canada is not my country. I'm not "Canadian". I'm Sḵwxwú7mesh & Kwakwaka'wakw.) How's that for a suggestion? OldManRivers (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add: I suck at naming conventions. So naming suggestions for these navboxes, much appreciated. OldManRivers (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not a Canadian point-of-view - CPOV that I'm on about, it's reflecting the indigenous point of view (IPOV) and much of the reality; the Okanagan and Ktunaxa organizations are border-spanning, by way of example, and the Coast Salish core area is bisected, East/West Germany style, by the international frontier; the idea is not to classify them as Canadian or American, although that's inherent in the category hierarchies...but it doesnt' have to be on templates. What I'm trying to explain that OMR's position, which I (as a cultus whiteman agree with...well maybe I'm not cultus but I'm definitely whitemans), is to favour the IPOV over the WPOV (which is CPOV+APOV="white man's point of view"); for example we'd had {{tl:First Nations on Vancouver Island}} but classifying stuff by geographic unit does'nt work; all three of the island's main culture groups "spill over" or are otherwise connected to the adjoining mainland. So that's even not at a political level of the issue; it's a sensitivity/awareness thing; not a "Canadian point of view"; OMR is much more a Skwxwu7mesh and a Kwakwaka'wakw than he is a Canadian, I'm sure he'd agree. if the template is put together well, also, it won't alienate indigenous visitors and/or potential editors/contributors; just thoughtfulness and respect, that's the issue, not so much POV; not so much POV as perspective....and that elusive "cultural authenticity" thing....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As to the breakdown by area, nope the Fraser River is core to it, not a border - y'see, that's an example of crossborder POV, including the Canadian one; but never mind that, it's just a reality of how the border has divided white consciousness in this region as well....anyway, the usual divisions are Coast and Plateau, with certain crossovers because of alliances/regular contact (e.g. the Wet-su-we'ten, a northern BC Athapaskan people who are closely connected to the Gitxsan, who are also Inland but linguistically/ethnographically connected to the Coast in many more ways than I should start listing; OMR and others could tell you, though, that there's a clear "cultural divide" between the Pacific Northwest Coast and the Northwest Plateau (Columbia-Fraser Plateau); usually the line is drawn linguistically, separating the Athapaskan and interior Salish rfrom the Coast Salish an their upcoast neighbours; the Chinook/Clatsops et al are generally considered teh soutehrn end of the cultural ecument of the "Northwest Coast cultures"; but the other Oregon Coast/Williamette people farther south, while not lingusitically related (otehr than the Tillamook) were definitely socially and historically related; the idea is that t he Northwest Coast "culture area" is kind of an identifiable, tangible thing; on the southern end, though it's hard to know where to draw the line; {{Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau}} is a bit easier to define, depending on where the Great Basin begins and ends (spillover there, too, I'd say) but also because the Tshilhqot'in and Wet'su'we'ten and Dakelh aren't usually included; in BC they necesarily are because THAT is CPOV; it's our plateau, not a US-perceived one where the "Northwest Plateau" culture area usually ends at the Interior Salish-Athapaskan frontier in the Cariboo or thereabouts; not trying to hector here, just explaining the complexities; beyond the plateau northwards I think we dcan stop there; those people, other than the Tahltans, Tsetsaut and Inland Tlingit, nearly all will figure in {{Dene}} or {{Denendeh}} ultimately, which is a whole 'nother story. Aboriginal/indigenous realities demand that, fror Wiki content to be taken wseriously by the communities it's about, it reflect their perceptions of themselves; that's why designing this tempalte is important. BTW everyone here pls see Talk:Local history.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW that Denendeh one would supplant an etnography/linguistics-based classification, as found i tneh cats Category:Peoples of the Canadian Sub-Arctic or whatever it is; at least the Northwest Coast identity/multiculture is a self-conceived reality, rather than one imposed from outside; years of collective community did produce something called the Pacific Northwest Sprachbund, which pretty much also describes the region laid out above; there's no proper article on that, google it...., although sprachbund will get you started...can't rememvber if the Chinookans were part of the PNW Sprachbund, though...peoples farther south that pretty quickly resemble California native peoples; another distinct culture area, California, come to think of it....(I mean indigenously, rather than post-indigenously, although that's all too true also isn't it?).Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually responding to Old Man Rivers, but it's the same thing. We can talk about POV in the abstract all day, all year, but it won't really improve the content. If there are specific ways I'm ignoring the Canadian or the native POV, just point them out, or change them. Trust me, I'm not going to take offense -- I do not regard myself as an expert in these matters. -Pete (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no; simply put - OMR's isn't CPOV, it's IPOV; I'm CPOV, just trying to intermediate APOV into the equation; actually I'm BPOV in historical terms (British as opposed to Canadians; BC being very different from "the Canadas"). So sorry to butt in, just trying to intermediate, and also get you to realize it's not a Canadian agenda of OMR's I'm supporting/endorsing - it's IPOV, Indigenous-point-of-view. The region discussions I laid out also aren't CPOV, though there's CPOV perspetive in them; tehy're historical/anthropological/enthographic/linguistic. Almost, therein lies the problem - that "almost".Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

additions & issues[edit]

I made a few additions to the peoples section, but overall I think this template is ill-conceived, hard to prioritize (who goes in people? - of the hundreds possible....) and still has that name and area-definition problem from above; and it's compounded in the Tribes section by the luymping of the PacNWCoast peoplers into one links while Oregon-specific tribes are specified; this is so unprotocolic in native culture terms and files in the face of the usual meaning of the Pacific Nrothest peoples (wihtout including Inteiror Washington and BC peoples also) that I hope the problem is clear; if it's not clear....well, I don't know what to say. mentiong hte Nez Perce without also naming the Cayuse or Spokan or Okanagan or Ktunaxa? I don't think you realize the import of that to the template's credibility, esp. with native people who migh visit a page it's displayed on.....I added what I added to make a point; each one of these sections is a large template - a very large tempalte - in its own right. Redefine the parameters, come to terms with the scope of potential content, and deal with that name issue. And try tothink of the Pacific Northwest as including something more than Oregon pls.....(that this template has Oregon-template colours is also kinda obvious).Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

expansion[edit]

Following up on my recent tirade, as no doubt some will see it, on Template talk:Oregon Early History I dropped by this template and to my chagrin saw that Pacific Northwest ended somewhere just a bit north of the Columbia; I added items in a north-to-south order for the coastal peoples, and will re-order the Interior peoples once I find all the Washington/Idaho ones; the BC list is complete, other than a split needed on Nicola people (q.v.) and the lack of specification of the various Coast Salish (in BC or Washington); that's whole template in itself ({{Coast Salish}}) of about 50 entries; similarly the Kwakwaka'wakw and other groups have subpeople names but I "didn't go there" because of the complexity that would result. The Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast link could be moved up to form a section heading; I'll draft up Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau finally, as it's been in the offing for a while and needs to get done.Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PacNW Coast subproject of WP:NorthAmNative[edit]

Hi; seemed appropriate to drop notice of this discussion here. Please weigh in as seen fit.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)