Talk:Nadleh Whut'en First Nation

Canada: British Columbia / Communities Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jshen246.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exonym

I understand that the use of endonyms is important, especially in Canada. But many readers need the historically used exonyms to be able to understand what the endonyms refer to. I am all for making the endonyms the primary identifier of indigenous groups, but I don't think makes sense to exclude them entirely, especially not as long as they are still prominent in the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my edit comment, there are lots of people around the world who don't know what First Nations means, but we don't put (Indian) beside it. If people don't know what Dakelh is, they can easily click it to find out. There are lots of readers who would't know what Carrier means either, but we don't need to put in an explanatory sentence every time we use a word, because you don't need to know what Dakelh means to comprehend the sentence. To be clear, I'm 100% in favour of using historic terms beside contemporary terminology when the term itself is the subject of the article. Romani people should definitely mentioned the term "Gypsy" but not ever article referring to Romani people needs to have "Gypsy" in parenthesis. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case specifically I came as a reader to the article wanting to know what language the Nadleh Whut'en traditionally speak, and I didnt find it - I had to follow the link to Dakelh to find out that it is the language that the linguistic literature describes as Carrier. Also I am not quite sure "gypsy" is the best comparison both because "gypsy" has a much longer and more significant history of pejorative use, and also because the literature has completely abandoned the term gypsy several decades ago. In Canada the move towards endonyms is quite recent, and not well entrenched in the literature yet - and it does not appear that "Carrier" has been generally used in a pejorative way, or considered to be that by the people themselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in response to your particular case, I'll point out that, for example, Matsqui First Nation only mentions that they're Sto:lo, so you'd still have to click again to see that they traditionally speak Halkomelem. You'd also be okay adding a reference to Carrier language to this article if you think it's worthwhile. My opposition to your current edit, however, is not pejorative vs non-pejorative. The point is the location of the term within a different article. If you think Carrier should be used everywhere instead of Dakelh, you're welcome to suggest a move of that article (though I wouldn't be in favour, personally). But what you're suggesting is the equivalent of suggesting that (Danzig) should be placed next to every instance of Gdańsk on Wikipedia. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I am not making any argument about consistency. I experienced that the term was missing here, I added it here and have no plans of engaging in something as futile as trying to create consistency. I am also not going to spend more time argueing this ultimately inconsequential piece of text. You may revert it back if you insist, or leave it if you find my arguments persuasive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517092653/http://www.tarsandswatch.org/tar-sands-first-nations-reject-enbridge-pipeline-equity-offer-your-money-no-good-us to http://www.tarsandswatch.org/tar-sands-first-nations-reject-enbridge-pipeline-equity-offer-your-money-no-good-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]