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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
Chinook children wore thin dresses.Even boys.It was culture. Believe it or not !!!!!!!!
They wore them to wedding,ceremonies.deaths.and births.Men wore long baggy pants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
They weren't dresses, they were tunics, which was common wear in most socieities for thousands of years; the fabric was the cambium of the red cedar, the garment was called a kalakwhattie, Kalahkwahtie etc (var. spelligns). A dress, for one thing, is tailored; a tunic doesn 't have to be....Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Chinook people → Chinookan peoples – this is not one people but a group of them, not all of them calling themselves "Chinook". Chinook peoples was available but "Chinookan" is more viable because of that self-identification issue e.g. Clatsop, Cathlamet etc. As with other "FOO people" titles, the complication with "people who are FOO" needs addressing, pluralization is the obvious, necessary solution. Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.