Talk:Kutenai

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

Name of article[edit]

I would prefer to see this article named Kootenai (people), considering the use of "tribe" is not universal and "people" is more accurate. For that matter, I would also like to see the article moved to Kutenai or Ktunaxa and this pages redirected to either of them. There seems to be a movement toward naming articles after aboriginal peoples by the name they use themselves. --Kmsiever 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CanCon needed[edit]

Dropped by to see what there was on Chief Isadore and the Tobacco Plains War in British Columbia, cf. Sam Steele, the RNWMP hetman for that operation. These are redlinked for now but are necessary articles eventually. The history section here also should have more on the BC side; I'll see what I can come up with but I'm not that familiar with East Kootenay aboriginal history.Skookum1 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. —harej (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kootenai (tribe) → Ktunaxa—As per official website of this tribe and discussions here and here. Hitro talk 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, unless evidence of prevalent English usage can be provided. We don't use official names; one reason is that the question of who the officials are is often beyond our competence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, The name Ktunaxa is used widely in the media and by historians to refer to these people. I think that the term Kootenai is archaic and offensive to the Ktunaxa people. --204.174.35.217 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't know about "Kootenai" being offensive, never heard that before but perhaps it's true on the US side of the line; all it is is a "white" attempt at rendering Ktunaxa, either that or it's a rendering of a neighbouring tribe's version of the name. In any case, the equivalent in Canada is spelled "Kutenai" and it, too, is obsolete/archaic and "Ktunaxa" is by far the norm in media and local intergovernmental usage; linguists tend to continue to use Kitunahan for the language but I've never seen "Kitunaha" for the people...."Kootenai"'s other Canadian equivalent, in geography, is of course "Kootenay" but that's a rare and old usage for the people. Ktunaxa is by far the norm nowadays, at least on the Canadian side of the border and by the sound of it within the Ktuanxa communities on the US side of the line.....within Wikipedia there's a sort-of-norm about using the preferred native spelling for native peoples' ethnonyms, even to the point of including special characters (see Stó:lō and Category:Sťáťimc and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh - the Fraser River (Coast) Salish, Lillooet people, and Squamish people respectively-....though myself I don't agree with the usage of the diacriticals, especially in catnames). Also "(tribe)" is pretty much a US-wiki usage, and this is a cross-border tribe, so it's an inappropriate term in the Canadian context, where "tribe" is very, very, very rarely used....("nation" or "First Nation" or "people" or "band" being the preferred/norms, though tribe has been applied, but usually in a specific cultural sense in some areas or in "bad usage" by outside writers).Skookum1 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we see some examples of useage in English prose; if someone can produce some it would strengthen the case for a move. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailytownsman.com/article/20090730/CRANBROOK0101/307309956/0/CRANBROOK/children-sit-in-on-ktunaxa-story-telling

http://bcheritage.ca/steele/ktunaxa/ktunaxa.htm

http://publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-026.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/kootenayadvertiser/community/50885532.html

Kootenai may not be "offensive" in the strictest terms, but it similar to somebody using the term "coloured" rather than "african-american" - times have changed, and things get corrected. Kootenai may still be only used by a handful of old-timers, but I would suggest that almost 99% of the people would use Ktunaxa...--24.66.231.93 (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Thanks for the examples. They help make the case for a move. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

citations[edit]

The history section requires editing to comply with Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic style, and references to substantiate what's been written. A tag was put on in 2009, but the nec. work hasn't been done. I removed the 'Wikify' tag after putting in and checking internal links, and removing sentences written in the first person, (written in 'I' and 'my opinion') I'll check back in a few months to see where it stands, but unsubtantiated claims cannot be left in indefinately. I can offer assistance, if required. --Nihola (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for a citation: https://royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/exhibits/living-landscapes/cbasin/salmonbeds/kootenay_region.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epochild (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

confusing info regarding origin[edit]

There is some confusion in the writing regarding the origin of the Ktunaxa. If the goatfell complex is evidence of the Ktunaxa people having lived in the Creston Valley area 11,500 years ago, then how did they come, later, from the Praries? And, how do the Salish Sinixt peoples fit into the goatfell complex, since they coexisted in the Kootenay region, and, perhaps, lived there first. They should at least be mentioned in the article as being a neighboring/co-existing group, for a very long time. I think there are some neutrality issues here.Nihola (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too cynical here, but it's pretty common for a present indigenous group to claim anyone who lived in the same area at any time in the past as members of their people, regardless of whether there is any evidence for continuity. I am no expert in this subject but IIRC at least some researchers think that the Interior Salish came in from the coast a few thousand years ago and assimilated the "Coyote people" who lived there earlier. The Goatfell people may or may not have been Salish or Ktunaxa or something else altogether, to the best of my knowledge. Megalophias (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[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: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kutenai people → Ktunaxa – This was moved by a speedy and without an RM in June 2011, which apparently was done without reviewing the previous RM from 2009. As with others like Lillooet people and Thompson people, COMMONNAME and ENGLISH were cited as reasons, by ENGLISH does not apply, CANENGL does, and though this involves Montana and Idaho, the term "Ktunaxa" is accepted and used by the people in question there, though they do use the American English adaptation "Kootenai" (also used for the river on that side of the border); they also use "Ksanka". Ktunaxa is the preference of their pan-border organization, and is the norm for these people in English in Canada now, and the accepted standard. As for "COMMONNAME" there are 69,700 hits for "Ktunaxa" and only 12,600 for "Kutenai people", whereas the alternate spelling "Kootenai people" gets only 9,050 results. It's also used in the name of the group's online presence and is their official name and their own preference. Imposing a name on them without considering this was more than a bit colonialist and that should always be a consideration when writing/naming any article on indigenous peoples. This will also impact Category:Ktunaxa as has also been the risk/reality with such main-article changes. Impacts on categories are supposed to be considered when making a speedy; it was clearly not here, as with the other parallel cases, and the previous RM demonstrates citations which established the Ktunaxa name properly, but was ignored. Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support restore of RM result. 28 June 2011‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,854 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Talk:Ktunaxa to Talk:Kutenai people: ENGLISH and COMMONNAME) (undo) - This is too stale to invoke ANI action, I can't remember whether the previous RMs restoring counter-RM moves by Kwamikagami resulted in any apology or undertaking not to do it again, but I would have thought that now Kwami needs to go and review 1 by 1 all undiscussed moves he has made and restore any that are counter previous RM results. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Didn't see the RM, but it's four years old. One of the relevant guidelines here is WP:COMMONALITY. People all over the world have heard of the "Kutenai"; hardly anyone has heard of the "Ktunaxa", which AFAICT doesn't even have an English pronunciation (I just found one claim for "TOO-neks-ə"). This would be like moving "Chinese people" to "Hanren". — kwami (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What you're saying is incredibly parochial, Kwami, and your claim it doesn't have an English pronunciation flies in the face of the reality that it's now the official/accepted name used by the BC and federal governments and is regularly used by local media. It's easy for me to pronounce, and the pronunciation is given on the article, in case you hadn't noticed. "Kitunaha" is a rough anglicization and is also seen in the language-name "Kitunahan" which you can't pretend you don't know. "People all over the world" are not relevant in discussions about CANENGL names (which this is) and if that were the case, those googlehits wouldn't come out the way they do; unless you exclude all results from the people themselves and the BC/federal governments and all other British Columbian source. "Kutenai" also doesn't have an obvious pronunciation, by the way "Cut-eh-nay", perhaps? "Kootenay" in BC is pronounced "KOO-te-nee" not -nay, by the way. Positing one English adaptation, which was never used on the Canadian side of the border, with an official and indigenously-authentic one now in common use, whereas the other is not, is kinda weird, frankly.Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how to pronounce "Kootenay". It's no worse than "women" or "lose". The point is that it does have an established pronunciation.
Just the opposite of parochial. Insisting on a local name that has not been assimilated into the wider language is what's parochial. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you know how to pronounce "Kootenay"?? Post me an audio link of you saying it, then, and I'll tell you if you've got it right. Make sure you include the American pronunciation of "Kootenai" too. As for comparing to to "women" or "lose" you picked a bad second example (pronounced "looz" not "loos" or "loas") and are you clear on your own difference between "woman" and "women"? Positing core English words against adopted toponyms or ethnonyms is not in the ballpark and to me is just another example of "reaching at straws". Kutenai does NOT occur in Canadian English, also. Perhaps you're going to say "Ojibwe" has to be retitled to the "more English" and "more people know" term "Ojibway"? Or that the Nakoda article should be renamed "Stoney Indians"?Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is becoming incoherent. Of course I'm clear on the diff: that's why I chose those examples.
I'll do better than post my own pronunciation: I'll cite a RS. The OED has two pronunciations, /ˈkuːtəneɪ/ and /ˈkuːnəni/. (I use the second.) They're not even marked as foreign, but are accepted as assimilated English words.
BTW, this isn't even a Canadian issue per your narrow def, because the Kutenai live in the US as well. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why a spelling used only on the US side of the border shouldn't be used, nor "Kootenay" (or once upon a time "Kootenae") which is Canadian shouldn't be used either, and why the endonym, which both groups on either side of the border (actually it's one group) should be used; that it also happens to be official in Canada and in wide use in organization names and media there only adds to it. Care has been taken in cross-border articles of all kinds to make sure appropriate language is used which is why the title of Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast is what it is, rather than "Native American tribes of" or "First Nations peoples of". The other border-spanning groups are the Coast Salish peoples who have a common term in both English; in the case of the Okanagan people the Colville group belong to the Okanagan Nation Alliance and so the Canadian spelling is used for that article (Okanagan people now, since your non-RM move from what had been Syilx, which is their real name and not as much found in Canadian English so I haven't opposed that one; and the third group, actually a subset of that one, are the Sinixt.....that's not an English word either, supposedly, I'm surprised you didn't play the ethno-imperialist there, too, like you have with all these others, and re-imposed the name "the Lakes" on them.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where'd OED get /ˈkuːnəni/ from? You pronounce it that way? Two 'n's? More like /ˈkuːəni/. I'd love to see you in Nelson or Creston talking about being in the "Koonunnies".Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OED has the transcription I've put in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not English. I can easily pronounce [kʰtʰuˈnaxa], but it's not English. Even if 'Ktunaxa' has some official usage, that doesn't mean WP should adopt this. Moreover, the title Ktunaxa would be insufficiently specific, just like Kutenai would be. --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Lots of names in Canadian English aren't global English, and many you won't know how to pronounce either, including non-indigenous ones like Craigellachie. For a fuller list see my recent comment in Talk:Chilcotin people#Requested move, I don't feel like listing them all again...would be easy to add more. Tsuu T'ina is not English either, but we definitely don't use Blood Indians anymore....the list is long.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction not relevant to this discussion....well, no it is, by way of further examples of endonyms replacing older "English" terms. I was wrong about the two peoples named; the Tsuu T'ina are "most people know them as" to use the refrain, the Sarcee; the Blood are the Kainai "now". Similarly, the people once known simple as "the Lakes" are now the Sinixt; their history is intertwined with that of the Ktunaxa.Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you pronounce Ktunaxa? — Lfdder (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like they say /tuːˈnæxə/ (more like [tuˈnaxə]) here, tho the narrator is (most likely) not a native English speaker. — Lfdder (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how many Ktunaxa, do you think, are not native English speakers? Aboriginal English is, yes, often heavily accented, but often it's their only language, though affected by the inherited phonology they were raised around; it's impacted non-native English in many areas also.....the claim made here that "no one knows how to pronounce this" somehow excludes Ktunaxa English speakers, most of whom speak no Ktunaxa to any great extent other than important words and band names/placenames.....I think it's only Secwepmtsin and Dakelh that have any significant proportion of their membership with any proficiency in their languages; very few of those would be "native" speakers of their languages, as few households have indigenous-only-speaking elders in them to bring children up with their language as a mother tongue.Skookum1 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't implying that at all. I said the narrator, who is not Ktunaxa. The reason I said he might not be a native speaker is 'cos he was able to pronounce [x] and his /æ/ (or it might've been /ɑ/) sounded central. I'm not familiar with all the English dialects in the world, and if he's a L2 speaker, he's obviously a very good one. — Lfdder (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada in general, and modern BC in particular, is full of native-born Scots and Welsh and the like; that someone can pronounce /x/ or whatever [lh] or [tl] is who's from Scotland in the one case, and from Wales in both, is kinda normal ... there's lots of Germans everywhere in BC, and Doukhobors as well as other groups who are familiar with sounds not found in English; it's part of the cultural landscape here. Can't comment on the vowel; suffice to say that BC English is supposed to be part of West-Central Canadian English but nobody's ever done a full dialect study on BC's regions, or on such matters as aboriginal English usage. The East Kootenay, to me, is flavoured by the way Albertans speak, which is notably different than BCers in many cases; though the linguists maintain we speak the same dialect we can pick each other out. That may have more to do with intonation and cadence and not vowels....though I do think their consonants are "harder" and their speaking style much more strict, vs a sloppy anything-goes style in BC English.Skookum1 (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some official usage" is not easy to dismiss when it's the only usage in Canada, and the preferred one for the people themselves, and in wide use in Canadian media. WP does not have freedom to override Canadian English norms. And what do you mean "insufficiently specific"? It's accepted by American Ktunaxa as proper ("Ksanka" is from a dialect used in Montana and, I think, Wyoming). COMMONNAME calls for "Ktunaxa" (see the google cited), which "Kutenai" fails completely for, and also has never been used in Canada, where most of these people live.Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move: First, Indigenous people of the Americas need to be called what THEY want to be called, at least where a consensus exists. To do otherwise is potentially racist and insensitive. (That said, sometimes there is no consensus, but I don't think this is a problem here) Second, none of the three possible names are actually English, they are Anglicazations of the indigenous language anyway, so WP:ENGLISH has no bearing here. That said, "Kootenai" is probably the most common use, it actually has over a million hits. We aren't talking about Munich versus München here, we are talking about an express decision by the people so labeled. Montanabw(talk) 23:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be called what they want to be called, but if people can't use the words, because they have no English pronunciation, then they can't call them that, can they? It would be like the Chinese insisting on being called hànrén with proper tones: they can insist all they like, but since English doesn't have tones, people simply aren't going to do it. Once these native names are anglicized, so that English-speakers can pronounce them, then they're English names. But if they can't be pronounced, they're useless as names outside of print. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So no one properly pronounces a lot of words transliterated from another alphabet or language into English. That doesn't mean we don't try if asked. I remember when the Chinese DID ask us all to stop saying "Peking" and start saying "Beijing," we did. Nor do we persist in, for example, saying the infamous "n-word" because "African-American" is a mouthful. It's a respect issue (sigh). Montanabw(talk) 00:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Kutenai"....how is an ordinary person supposed to know how to pronounce that?? And don't claim it's obvious. It's given right on one of the many Ktunaxa-related pages somewhere it's pronounced pretty much "Tunaha with a slight 'k' before the T". I can pronounce it, and I'm an English-speaker. Perhaps you'd want to suggest the archaic, though pronunciation-suitable, "Kitunaha".......which is the same word, it's just that there is now a preferred (and official) orthography for that term. "Kutenia", I'll repeat, doesn't exist in Canadian English and doesn't reflect at all how the preferred/official name sounds. And who are you to decide, without any regard to Canadian English or aboriginal sensitivities (very surprising for someone working in ethnolinguitics as you obviously do) what's best for someone to call themselves, or pass judgment as sweeping as "useless as names outside of print", which is utter nonsense and extremely chauvinistic.Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caveat with that is "Kootenai" will also give results for the Kootenai National Forest and Kootenai River (as the Kootenay River is officially named in the US) and other materials. I've never heard an American pronounce it, it may be different than the Canadian "KOO-t(uh)-nee".Skookum1 (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much the same pronunciation, sometimes truncated to two syllables (KOOT-nee), but not always. Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the "t(uh)" was meant to indicate that the "uh" is 'optional' and yes, KOOT-nee is the result if it's taken out, and is by far the more common pronunciation; even in broadcast English there's never a strong syllable between the 'k' and the 'n', though because of the enunciation of the 't' that broadcasters will most likely do, any sense of a syllable there is completely submerged.Skookum1 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add to the above, that I live in the region, and, in my experience, the commonly-used term is Ktunaxa.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just finished writing CBC and CTV and one personal acquaintance who's a host on CBC Radio in Vancouver (Mark Forsythe) as to what style or pronunciation guides they have, as they do use these terms in English-language broadcasts, and regularly. It's Sunday evening in Vancouver at the moment. The result won't be a linked work, maybe though, the result is most likely to be a manual they will PDF or quote for me/us. There's quite a few other reporters and publishers I could also write but there's only so much time in the day; this applies to the St'at'imc/Lillooet, Tsilhqotin/Chilcotin, Nlaka'pamux/Thompson and Secwepemc/Shuswap RMs also. Kwami keeps on demanding I provide cites for him, well I'm out to do that. Where are HIS??Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above, where I gave them to you. Again, it's not up to us to disprove you, it's up to you to support your arguments per the requirements of WP. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just scrolled back up this section, there are no links or other cites posted by you. Is this just more deflection and evasion? yes, of course it is, that's all you've been doing. Where above? You don't have anything posted above. This is more and more like gamesmanship all the time. Montanabw's right, you're just being a troll. Where do you live anyway? Have you ever been to Nelson or Cranbrook or Creston or Columbia Lake or Tobacco Plains? Are you going to demand KootenayVolcano produce some cites too? WP:CFWT I'll have to get around to penning someday (CRWT = colossal fracking waste of time).Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone oughta spread some love around here. — Lfdder (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should provide cites to back up their swaggering false claims, too.Skookum1 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh, so your claims of "everyone knows" and "many people worldwide" don't have to be backed up; you refuse to admit that obvious use of these terms as regular group-nouns and -adjectives in normal Canadian publications and regular use, is now the norm in a form of English? Just because you think it's spelled funny?Skookum1 (talk)
  • You ask for cites that are under your nose, then mock me for going to find some to yes, prove that these are regular usages in Canadian political and media discourse, including on-air in as well as in print; yet Kitunaha was always there in this historical record; that's an outdated spelling of Ktunaxa, same/name word and the easier might have been more acceptable; that's just the modern form/spelling. No doubt you'll say "that wasn't English either" but ya so what??Skookum1 (talk)
  • You continue to rant on about that as if it meant anything, and somehow managed to de-value the obvious huge list of aboriginal terms that are not just part of Canadian English but Canadian geography and modern Canadian culture; and not just native culture. I've provided cites for all this already and still you pretend to demand for me, even mocking me for going to sources that will have a documentable answer and you're attacking me STILL?? And refuting or ignoring any evidence or counter-example I produce that shows what you've been saying remains uncited, yet you keep on mocking and insulting me because I haven't produced the precise kind of citations that YOU want. Yet you provide none yourself (yet clalm/lie that you have)Skookum1 (talk)
  • I've thought of more cites too, because discussions of how to say native names (geographic and group) IN ENGLISH (not in IPA-ese or native orthography but as used in English, such as with "St'at'imcets" which somebody removed claiming I had a thing about English and that it should only appear on the language page "in its correct form". No, the undiacritical form the people page was there because when that name for the language appears in normal English print, it has no diacriticals; same with Sto:lo or Nuxalk or that old cracker Skwxwu7mesh; that's how they appear in when used in English; the Sto:lo are a regular part of governance and society and history coverage in the Lower Mainland and it's accepted as the normal name, not the "foreign" name for them. Skookum1 (talk)
  • You've ignored the CANENGLISH point entirely and you ignored the issue of aboriginal sensitivities about language and names, and just want to decide the fate of this article on a pronunciation cite??!!. Wow, I didn't realize over-specialization in one field caused such vision and comprehension problems.....I'm on the way to produce cites for what you've challenged me to find, and you're being snotty about it because my contacts for same don't have your office hours and will probably reject them anyway (which will be weird, since two at least of them include pronunciation guides; I haven't provided the pronunciation guides someone else posted on another of these RMs, though), and you haven't yet produced a citation for the things you have claimed, here and elsewhere. You attack me because you haven't a leg to stand on. It's an old tactic, unwitting sometimes, but often born of ignorance of the facts and/or a refusal a to admit you're wrong.Skookum1 (talk)
  • I live amid the facts i.e. Canadian English usages and following aboriginal affairs and regional history, and I know what the norm in my country's national English now is; and that national English is supposed to hold in Canadian Wikipedia articles. In this case, asserting a pointedly American spelling when a neutral one exists is part of this, but the general topic of the modern acceptance and propagation of these terms in official and media and also spoken, regular English, is an established and given fact in Canada; you ignored KootenayVolcano entirely on that too, of course you'll dismiss her because our own personal testimony means nothing to you.Skookum1 (talk)
  • Your claim that what this alleged "more people worldwide" use/know is meaningless in the context of national English; especially to hear you claim this word is "foreign" when you are. Where are you anyway? I mean, don't you get it, that Kutenai you've assumed is the "everyone knows" term (everyone's a pretty big word) is definitely foreign north of the 49th, and you're neither Canadian nor aboriginal (so far as I know). This word/name is part of regular Canadian English now.Skookum1 (talk)
  • Who are you, as an outsider, to dismiss the Canadian English on Canadian topics guideline and the indigenous authentic/representative/respectful ethic of {{NorthAmNative}} and whatever's in WP:Ethnic Groups on similar issues? Bombastic rhetoric, indeed, but necessary to re-iterate the fallacies of your logic, and your own lack of cites. Go on, prove to me that it's "most common", "everybody knows it", and "it's not English because I don't see an IPA reference I like".Skookum1 (talk)
  • I'm finding the references (found a bunch, cited below now) I know will shut your "idiotic" nonsense down (a word that if you'd used that anywhere but re your own talkpage you'd be blocked by now), and your conflated ego, too. Yes, I'm more long-winded than you, but I do have things to say, whereas you just keep on refusing to acknowledge cites while evading having to present your own.Skookum1 (talk)
  • I'm 57, have followed my country's politics and also native issues since my teens (my high school was 1/10 or more native but that's not the only reason) and have been reading about them and using their names for probably longer than you have been alive. And I used to use Nishga and Gitksan and Lillooet and Thompson and Nootka and saw them in print regularly, but they're now replaced by Nisga'a, Gitxsan, St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux and Nuu-chah-nulth ..... we didn't have a word for the Sto:lo yet, you called them by which group they were from i.e. Kwantlen, Coqualeetza, Matsqui, Lakalhamen, Chehalis etc.... and since the early '80s or before those have disappeared and all been replaced, under shifting spellings, by the terms you pretend or are just ignorant of being part of regular English in Canada. I'm not making this up as any person who's from BC knows (three of them at least have also supported this RM, and others); a full cite would be access to a university library where I could access the Globe and Mail's historical archive, search with certain dates for each term, build you a chart. I'm about to go to the Ministry of Forests Library to find what they have to say, know there's something on BC Name, and there's www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca which is the RBCM (have done so, search results below, including pronunciation guides).Skookum1 (talk)
  • You're saying you don't have to disprove anything, but common knowledge is not on your side like you think it is. I see these words all the time when reading history and politics and art articles, they don't need to be given pronunciation thingies in the magazines or sites either, people know how to say them. Because they're used on TV by politicians and newscasters; they are part of English NOW. Time to get off the bookshelf and get with the times, Kwami.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one requesting the moves, so the burden of evidence is on you. Moreover, people usually won't read your overly long disordered writings, see WP:Too long; didn't read. --JorisvS (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TLNDR is a sloppy excuse used by those who don't want to acknowledge facts presented and/or with short attention spans. I'll bullet my points above when I get the chance; you should take some reading-comprehension-skills training if long prose is bothersome to you. Were all your exams multiple-choice or what? Pretty pathetic when an academic type snots their noses at people for using full prose instead of point-form. The burden of evidence I've been providing, there has yet to be a shred of it from ANY OF YOU.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should take some writing-skills training if you can't write a clear argumentation with paragraphs, not make personal attacks. --JorisvS (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it's you and your pals who are the ones being condescending and doing the attacking around here, kiddo, and your abysmal lack of ability to read through prose remains your issue, not mine. How'd you like them cites? Got any cites for "not English" yet, as if that were a valid reason to exclude something from Wikipedia? What a piece of work the lot of you are.Skookum1 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • usage comparison on BC Ministry of Forests Library search for "Ktunaxa" 9 results, dupes omitted, "Kutenai", 50 results, but mostly to do with the river or citing American publications re the people; appears to autocorrect/similar name the search for "Kootenai" also. I'm looking, though, for a pronunciation guide, and there's a good ten other ministries that should have one (including the A-G's office as mentioned, where my contact person is away until the 21st). Next up, Ministry of Environment, I'd think the Ministry of Education will have something, or should.....any of you linguistics people come up with any cites to back up your arrogance and ongoing claims t hat you don't have anything to prove nor any need to, "because you're right", even though you haven't even tried to prove that claim, you just keep on saying it over and over.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support Ktunaxa should be a disambig page, would support move to Ktunaxa people. Looks like Kutenai is falling into disuse to me, Ktunaxa already used in lit. Pronunciation would still be nice to have. — Lfdder (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can't find the other mention of this rename proposal so will place it here; "Ktunaxa people" works here but there are complications in some of the other cases; "Secwepemc people" is redundant, so are St'at'imc and Nlaka'pamux and, I think, Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish in either form; this was all discussed about types of articles and which of possible names to use; and because the "peoples" category would have things in it that wouldn't need an ancillary "people" after it (except maybe, awkwardly, in brackets as a dab); and so none of them would. In some cases "nativized" spellings were proposed and adopted that distinguished peoples from similar-named places, e.g. Yakima/Yakama, Wenatchi/Wenatchee; "Sto:lo people" works fine because, whatever Halkomelem has in the way of an -mc/-msh/-mx/-m form, it's not on there; same with Shishalh and others; but when the word or implication (as with Kwakwaka'wakw - "those who speak" the meaning of the name was taken into account in considering on general principles surrounding names for people articles; government articles of course you go by the chosen names of the governments, or the more common use one if that can be cited; anyways doing it properly also means avoiding redundancy, even when cross-linguistic. "Haida people" means "people people", but Nuu-chah-nulth "along the outside (of Vancouver Island)" doesn't have the -ot/-at/-aht "people" suffix; it's an item by item one to look at; same as with individuals; Simon Gunanoot's articles like many others is a hybrid but then so was he; among modern natives by their "tribal" names, there's Gary Edenshaw and others, in his case Guujaaw (he's also User:Guujaaw). Hm. I think Stillaguamish and Sahewamish and such of the southern Coast Salish pages might now have that redundant "people" ending. I'm just reporting that this was all lengthily discussed when all these articles and categories were being fleshed out a few years ago; I remember User:Murderbike (who's Native American from maybe Skagit County, can't remember) first off but there were others; this also went by WP Washington and WP Oregon or all three groups were part of the discussion; I could go on about this at length, as to who was involved and what was said, but the point is there was a reason for the un-people names, which also partly to do with category-matching as with the "people" redundancy issue (which is very common in NA/FN names). St'at'imc if you wanted "people" in it would have to be the undeclined/whatever the term is transform from "St'at' people"...I heard a different story from my USLCES contact than the usual "people of Sat'" (under whatever spelling, pron shatl); but will save it for that page.Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suggestion is to only have 'people' when the peoples and the language are synonymous. Not an issue with cats cos we've got both of them in the same cat. — Lfdder (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's only Ktunaxa and Tsilhqot'in with this "issue" it seems. I think for the sake of consistency it'd be better to just keep the dab page at X (disambiguation) (if need be). Changed to Support. Can assume my support for the other 4 as well. — Lfdder (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I didn't mention Tsilhqot'in in the course of that but the -t'in ending is also people, like similar on Wet'su-we'ten and Tahltan.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you oppose when the current title, as you note, is "falling into disuse" and Ktunaxa is clearly widespread? As for pronunciation sites, the Ministry of Education map and the ktunaxa.org citations already have that, there's two more on another RM I'll go copy over in a bit. Still waiting on CBC and CTV and the BC Ministry of the Attorney-General's Counsel General of British Columbia branch. There are all so commonplace and in regular use by bureaucrats, media, companies and so on that it's ridiculous to suggest that they're not used in English, or that extensive pronunciation cites are needed to validate that. As for Ktunaxa being a dab page, since all derivative names come from the primary Ktunaxa people usage, that's dubious; Ktunaxa Nation (for the "national" government), Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council (and the similarly-named but different in function Treaty Council) and Ktunaxa language are what would be on the dab; fine, I suppose, but still no reason to oppose this move.Skookum1 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I just want it done properly. We've always got a dab page when peoples and their lang go by the same name. — Lfdder (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Capmo has provided for the Shuswap/Secwepemc RM these two links:
Regardless, I don't think you knew how to pronounce Ktunaxa when you made this move request. — Lfdder (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretentious supposition, given that I've lived in BC most of my 57 years and been knowledgeable (more than most whites anyway) about native affairs since the '70s and am the one who started the Ktunaxa category hierarchy...I've also lived in the Slocan and been around Nelson a lot which is part of Ktunaxa turf (though if you listen to the Sinixt, it's only their turf) and have read far more about these and other FN peoples in BC than you obviously ever have. When are you types going to stop with the snotty comments and acknowledge the cites your Fearless Leader has demanded, but who is still is shooting his mouth off that I haven't produced? In psychiatry this condition is known as "advanced denial".....Skookum1 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit odd you didn't say what the pronunciation is right from the start is all. I don't think my 'pretentious supposition' was altogether misguided, but if you say I'm wrong, then I've no reason to doubt you. — Lfdder (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not taking anybody's side here. As you may have noticed, I only opposed this MR 'cos I want 'people' appended to it as is the norm. I understand creating 5 new MR's is tedious if it means there's no consensus, but I don't know if there's any other (better) way about it. — Lfdder (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have prefaced that post/"vote" with "Rename" not "Oppose"....and re pronunciation I never expected to be faced with such an irrelevant demand; the googlecites along prove that this term is current in Canadian English.Skookum1 (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - Concurring strongly with User:Montanabw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - I'm impressed by the amount of work Skookum1 has put into this RM as well as their local knowledge. Given that another local, MontanaBW comes to the same conclusion, I'm convinced that Ktunaxa is the best name for this article. Kwamikagami needs to be admonished for the speedy move in 2011 which breaches our consensus that only uncontroversial moves may be performed speedily. Quite clearly a speedy move in contradiction of a previous move discussion is a long way from uncontroversial. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another cite in favour of the endonyms was located by User:Pfly for the Lillooet/St'at'imc RM and it's an essay from the federal Translation Bureau about the changes, and it says straight out "Ktunaxa (formerly Kootenay)"....I suggest you read the whole thing, and also see his citation of a publ.2012 children's book on aboriginal people which says the same thing.Skookum1 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move And in doing so support the rights of a people to use their name rather than a given name, supported by government and indicated by sources. And noting that these names are not English translated into another language but the actual names of the peoples that have then been renamed, but not necessarily translated from the original language, an important distinction to me at least. The most accurate way of naming a people then, is to use the original name rather than depend on the inconsistency of naming methods used by other than the people themselves. (olive (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I haven't been following this but saw my name mentioned above. Just yesterday I discovered I have online access (via the Seattle Library) to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which seems like a strong and useful source on issues like this. They also provide pronunciation. Here's their entry for Ktunaxa (they use the longer name Ktunaxa Kinbasket). Make of it what you will. Pfly (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ktunaxa Kinbasket /ktuːˈnɒxɒ ˈkɪnˌbasket/

▶ noun
1. a member of an Aboriginal people living in southeastern BC and northeastern Washington.
2. the language of this people, a language isolate.
▶ adjective of or relating to this people or their culture or language.
Also called Kutenai.

Origin Ktunaxa, ktunaxa (self-designation) + name of Chief Kinbasket of the Secwepemc Nation, whose clan joined with the Ktunaxa in the 19th c.

  • Comment I guess someone oughta let them know about Idaho and Montana too, huh?20:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 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".Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 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) 06:47, 22 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.

[kʰtʰuˈnaxa] transcription[edit]

Is this supposed to be in the Ktunaxa language? Anyone got any idea? — Lfdder (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (It's not possible in English.) — kwami (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B*******t if your implication (k)Tunaha can't be said by English-speakers (such as, for example, KootenayVolcano who is familiar with the word and hears it all the time in English. There's sounds in Ktunaxa that are of course outside of English, same as there are French names that may not be pronounced right in English but are still French names. I can't pronounce Halqemeylem right, either, but that doesn't mean it's not used when I write English mentioning it. You figured out how to say "Sheshatshiu" yet by the way? It exists in English, and in English Wikipedia......and since when did you speak Kitunahan enough to answer Lfdder's question? Oh, by reading about it, same as the rest of us huh?Skookum1 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know nothing about phonology. [kʰtʰuˈnaxa] is not a possible word in English. It includes sounds that English does not have, and violates English phonotactics. It is therefore not English. You can insist that it is, just as I can insist that English has the tones of Vietnamese, but that will have no effect on reality. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the transcription that's very obviously not English; it's got nothing to do with if or how Ktunaxa is said in English. I was asking if this is Ktunaxa 'cos Morgan (1991) says Ktunaxa stops are unaspirated. The transcription he gives (p. 1) is /ktunaxaʔ/ [ktunʌ́χɑ̝]. — Lfdder (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SOMEONE fix the IPA, don't delete it. IPA, after all, stands for INTERNATIONAL, so it should encompass all sounds, right? Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm gonna delete an incorrect transcription. What are you, high? It's not clear if Morgan follows the IPA very closely. — Lfdder (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't attack other editors Lfdder, I suggest you FIX the transcription, given that you are such an expert in IPA. Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was kidding....but you're not making any sense, so it might be that you are high after all. — Lfdder (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of things in other languages that can't be pronounced by non-native speakers. That's their problem, not the problem of the IPA. The IPA needs to be transcribed by someone who can pronounce it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

comment The transcription was perhaps overly broad for the vowels. But Kutenai does not have an aspiration distinction, and in most languages of the area which allow obstruent clusters like this, those consonants are aspirated. (Or, if you prefer, they're separated by voiceless schwas.) I doubt that [kt] is just run together in this language either, the way it is in English act, but are articulated separately. — kwami (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Morgan 1991, p. 45–46. Says [k] unreleased in casual speech, released but unaspirated or only slightly aspirated in careful speech. No word on [t] being aspirated. — Lfdder (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kutenai/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 writeup/detail/description and pics/map --Skookum1 (8 May 06)

Substituted at 01:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 04:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktunaxa → Kutenai – This is going to take some explaining, but I really believe the article should be at Kutenai, following the RM at Kutenai language which left the article at that title. The previous RM was misinformed on how widespread the form "Ktunaxa" is, both among the people themselves, and in the sources about them:

  • For starters, Kutenai is demonstrably the WP:COMMONNAME over "Ktunaxa". See Google Books ([1] vs. [2]), 21st century Google Books ([3] vs. [4]). It's also the most common in the academic literature (see McMillan & Yellowhorn, p. 180, Morgan, p. 1, Davis, p. 1371).
  • Other spellings like Kootenay and Kootenai are variants of the same name "Kutenai". Unlike other spellings, which occur in geographical names, "Kutenai" is almost exclusively used for the people and their language.
  • Equally importantly, "Kutenai" is the version used by the people in both Canada and the U.S. when referring to the Kutenai as a whole. BC Kutenai tend to use "Kootenay" and more recently "Ktunaxa", while Idaho and Montana Kutenai use "Kootenai"; this is reflected even in geographical names (see Kootenay River, aka the Kootenai River in the U.S.) However, "Kutenai people on both sides of the international border have begun to use this last spelling [Kutenai] as an international spelling of the name, thereby avoiding the distinctly Canadian and the distinctly U.S. spellings." (Morgan, p. 1, Davis, p. 1371).
  • Ktunaxa isn't the correct term for all Kutenai. It's actually just one of two words in the Kutenai language referring to the people. The other is Ksanka. The Montana Kutenai call themselves Ksanka exclusively in the native language and Kootenai (Kutenai, etc.) in English. They never call themselves Ktunaxa (Morgan, p. 1; Clark, p. 126).
  • Similarly, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the vast majority of sources about them do not use Ktunaxa in English. Given the national divide in the use of "Ktunaxa", this becomes an WP:ENGVAR issue.
  • Ktunaxa is the preferred version of many, but not all, Kutenai in Canada. Notably, the Ktunaxa Nation uses it. However, some Canadian Kutenai and organizations don't use that form; notably, the Lower Kootenay First Nation do not.
  • Fortunately, there's an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY. While Ktunaxa is unused in Montana and rare in Idaho, Kutenai and variants are in common use in British Columbia in reference to the people and their language.[5][6][7][8][9]. Especially as it's used as an international name in both countries, it's a point of WP:COMMONALITY between the various Kutenai/Ktunaxa groups. Per COMMONALITY, we should "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English."

In short, "Ktunaxa", while the preferred name among British Columbia Ktunaxa, isn't an appropriate name for all people described in this article; "Kutenai" is an international version used by the people in both countries (satisfying WP:COMMONALITY), it is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is the name most used in scholarship. Cúchullain t/c 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This will be a perennial proposal until we move this title to a neutral, common and internationally accepted name. Support as proposed Red Slash 10:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Kutenai, why not Kutenai people with a disambiguation page at Kutenai, per French, Japanese, etc.? Why do the people supersede the language in this particular case? Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there wouldn't be a language without the people. As per WP:ETHNICGROUPS we only add "people" (or other disambiguators) if the people aren't the primary topic (a person typing in "French" may mean French people, but they're probably more likely to be searching for France, the French language spoken by millions outside of France, and all the many other topics called "French". In this case there are only two items that would use the "Kutenai" spelling, the people and the language, so it's a WP:TWODABS situation. Typically, as in articles in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, when it's just the people and their language, the people are primary. Historically there hasn't been a lot of consistency on this on Wikipedia, but this is definitely the trend over the last few years now that the guidelines are clearer (hence the article is currently at "Ktunaxa" rather than "Ktunaxa people").--Cúchullain t/c 20:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no country involved, I'm not sure I'm convinced that Kutenai without "people" affixed is sufficiently distinct from "Kootenays"/"the Kootenay." (The root dab page I mentioned could simply be the one at Kootenay, which mentions the alternate spellings including Kutenai.) Dekimasuよ! 12:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, although the "Kutenai" spelling is never used for any of the other topics that I'm aware of (nothing notable, anyway). Though it's a smallish difference, readers who encounter that spelling will virtually exclusively done so in the context of the people and their language. I don't think it's a likely search term for the other uses. But if others find differently, Kutenai people would be acceptable. That dab page needs some major cleanup, BTW, I'll get to it today.--Cúchullain t/c 15:24, 13 June 2018 (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.

Alberta[edit]

What about Alberta being on the list. It’s known that the tribe has been around Longview area. 207.148.176.110 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kutenai&oldid=1204803959"