Talk:Nlaka'pamux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Thompson people)
Jump to: navigation, search

Separate language page needed[edit]

As well as government/organization articles for the respective bands/group governments incl. the redlinked Nlaka'pamux Tribal Council. Language page should probably be "Thompson language" instead of Nlaka'pamuxtsin or however it's to be written (see Talk:Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw on related naming issues BC-wide.Skookum1 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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. 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) 19:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)



Thompson peopleNlaka'pamux – This move was done by a speedy change, not by RM, with COMMONNAME and ENGLISH being used as the reasons. But CANENGL applies on Canadian English articles on Canadian topics, and "Nlaka'pamux" is now the standard in Canadian English, and like other indigenous endonyms in Canada is now the expected norm. Unlike the parallel RMs at Lillooet people/St'at'imc and Chilcotin people/Tsilhqot'in, where there is a marked difference in google results, the difference in google results here is marginal, though still in favour of Nlaka'pamux, which gets 28,200 results vs for "Thompson people" there are 28,000 - but a glance at the first page of that search demonstrates that not all of those are about these people. I don't have t ime at the moment to search on media sources such as the Vancouver Sun or The Tyee, which are in British Columbia, or in the Globe and Mail....but I know the results will overwhelmingly favour "Nlaka'pamux"....as do the people themselves. , even a CFDS, to Category:Thompson people from the current Category:Nlaka'pamux. It says right on the "move" page that impacts on categories and other articles should be kept in mind; here they weren't.` Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support restore as with other noms, and modern Canadian print sources. Particularly as it is startlingly imperialist to name a people after David Thompson (explorer). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hah! Old D.T. got his name on everything in my hometown - two rivers, some of the people found living there, a park, a mall, now the university, my elementary school, the main drag in my subdivision ... You'd think we were uncreative or something. The Interior (Talk) 18:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY if nothing else. Many people have heard of the "Thompson". Hardly anyone has heard of the "Nlaka'pamux", which AFAICT does not even have an English pronunciation.
ENGVAR, btw, applies to orthography and punctuation. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
CANENGL is the issue here, not ENGVAR or ENGLISH. "Many people" is an uncited claim and not borne out by the google results cited. Also highly parochial in attitude and, as In ictu oculi notes, extremely imperialist in this case. And very archaic.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
"Many people" have not heard of "the Thompson people" either....they should learn the right name, not the archaic one now discredited by the people themselves and in disuse in teh area where these people are very much a living culture (and a majority, particularly outside of municipalities). I just searched the Vancouver Sun, which is limited to recent articles only, there are three for "Nlaka'pamux", and none for "Thompson people". In the Globe and Mail, also which limits is search results to recent articles, there are 11 results for "Nlaka'pamux" and while there are three results for "Thompson people", NONE have to do with the Nlaka'pamux or any of its variously-named bands/communities. On The Tyee, another major media 'zine in BC, there are 21 results for "Nlaka'pamux" and one for "Thompson people" which is about them. In the Georgia Straight there is one result for Nlaka'pamux, none for "Thompson people". Do you want me to cite the UBC Museum of Anthropology, the Royal British Columbia Museum, BC Archives, National Archives of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, too?? I daresay what someone in Australia or Virginia isn't as relevant to this as usages in the area and in the province/country in question. I know what I'd get if I were to search the local papers in Merritt, Lytton, or Ashcroft or anywhere else nearby, that's for sure. What cites do you have for your "many people" claim?Skookum1 (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for how "Nlaka'pamux" is pronounced in English? If it doesn't have an English pronunciation, it isn't an English word, but only a foreign word used in writing English. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment ANY aboriginal name adopted into regular Canadian English, as all these have been, is not "foreign". To the natives it's the rest of Canadians who are "foreign". Native languages are not official languages like English or French, though unofficially they are "national languages" and treated as such on their home turf...as is obviously the case here and with Tsilhqot'in and St'at'imc and Ktunaxa. They are not "foreign". Radically the opposite. It's you, Kwami, who are "foreign".Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find, they're out there; clearly you're not looking. Just noting that on File:Nlaka'pamux.jpg under "Global File Usage" it appears that German, French, Turkish, Polish and Hungarian Wikipedias have had no such issue with "this is not a German/Turkish etc name and should not appear in German/Turkish etc Wikipedia". Since the Counsel-General's style advisor is away for the next two and a half weeks, I'll see if the CBC or CTV in BC have a pronunciation guide; as a linguist, your pretension in asking this is very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support restoration: An ethnic group should be called what THEY want to be called, not some basically racist name imposed upon them by outsiders. It isn't an WP:ENGLISH issue, we aren't talking about Munich versus München here, we are talking about an express decision by the people so labeled. (This is akin to proerly saying "African-Ameican" as opposed to something ore archaic or offensive...) Redirects can take care of the possibly better known, if undesirable names. Montanabw(talk) 23:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Also Thompson languageNlaka'pamux language. --Kmoksy (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not English. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment "Not English" is totally wrong, it may not be your English, but these names are the new norm in Canadian English and have been for a good twenty years and more. 'Ksan and Gingolx aren't "normal" English either, nor is Nuu-chah-nulth or Kwakwaka'wakw or Mi'kmaq or Inuit or Sto:lo, yet these are all common in Canadian English. You know, us funny folks that say "aboot" and use "-re" on "centre" and "-our" on "labour" and such.....and we embrace, including officially, indigenous words all the time...have a look at List of aboriginal place names in Canada and check it out. I suppose your position is that the Nisga'a article should be moved to the archaic Nishga people, too, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Thompson outmoded, no longer in use by academic sources, for instance note that the UBC Library (probably first or second ranked institution in terms of First Nations studies in W.Canada) uses the Nlaka'pamux subject heading for older works that use "Thompson" as their title.[1] True, I don't rightly now the pronunciation of Nlaka'pamux. I'm not sure that's important here. The Interior (Talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I can do it, probably better than most t'sama though still not like a native (most who don't speak their own language can still pronounce native-style when speaking English....and NB when native uses English, it's still English usage and they are not "hardly anyone"....Nlaka'pamux membership numbers in the few thousand. But it's not just them that use it.....an old-era spelling seen on maps and in some books was "Haukamaugh" or similar, of the same vintage as Stlatliumh and often seen on the same old maps, though "Knife Indian" or "Couteau Tribe" is more seen.Skookum1 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Capmo has provided for the Shuswap/Secwepemc RM two of these links; the third I found for the Kutenai/Ktunaxa RM and it applies across the board and is also from the Ministry of Education like one of the two provided by Capmo:
I addressed your injured ego elsewhere. The sources are rather illegible, but are clearly English. I did my best deciphering them for the lead. — kwami (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
it's not surprising that you'd demean the cites and insult me AGAIN. The ego problem is yours Mr "as a linguist I'm only interested in pronunciation" and endless swagger about not having anything to prove....clearly you have things to apologize and retract for having said, including your baiting and your many demeaning comments...you're the one with the attitude and the ego, pal. I'm the one with the knowledge of more than just one field.....when will give the posturing and pretentiousness a rest? The BC Ministry of Education may not meet your artificially and conceited high standards, but it's still a cite and that it happens to be part of the curriculum used in teaching English in BC validates it far more than any asinine evasions and intellectual laziness and your failure to cite "anyone knows that" and "more people worldwide" and "nobody has ever heard of" and so on.......you got through university with b.s. like that or are you still a sophomore, maybe?Skookum1 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move - Concurring strongly with User:Montanabw. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This essay from someone at the federal government's Translation Bureau pretty much sums all of these up and explains the why and wherefore it's happening; says also straight-out "Nlaka'pamux (formerly Thompson)".Skookum1 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments here. [2](olive (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC))
  • Comment Here's the entry from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd. edition, 2004. "Thompson3" is a link to the third meaning of their entry for "Thompson". Pfly (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nlaka'pamux /ˌənθlɒˈkɒpəm/

▶ noun
1. a member of an Aboriginal people living near the Thompson River in the Fraser River Valley of BC. Also called Thompson3.
2. the Salishan language of this people.
▶ adjective of or relating to this people or their culture or language.

Origin Nlaka'pamux, = ‘people of the mighty canyon’.
  • 2ndary stress on the schwa? Well, that's weird. — Lfdder (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Some dictionaries use schwa for the vowel of "bus". — kwami (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
They have ʌ for bus, but a schwa there the way that word's stressed doesn't even make sense so I guess they do mean ʌ. — Lfdder (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that is right. I can't seem to view the pronunciation key for the Cnd Oxford Dict, but there is this, which says it is the dictionary's pronunciation guide. Still, this looks rather different from the pronunciation we currently have on this page. That 'nθl' bit looks weird. I sure don't know! Pfly (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that is because it's not actually the English pronunciation, but an attempt to render the native pronunciation with English phonemes. (Try other names with an initial syllabic consonant: perhaps schwa in a stressed syllable is not an error but intentional, their way of approximating a syllabic /n/. Also, I don't control the vowel /ɒ/, but can it even exist in an open syllable like that?) The OED does something a bit similar, but specifically marks its non-English (that is, non-assimilated) pronunciations as such. I think we'd better stick to the AANDC pronunciation, which is clearly English even if we have to extrapolate where the stress is. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Your "suspicions" are just more speculation and original research on your part and the subject of correct pronunciation is irrelevant to the fact that these are NOW the accepted and preferred usages in Canadian English.Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 21 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) 06:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This nomination ignores the fact that when these people communicate in English they are most likely to use the current article name to describe themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment A "fact" is it? Care to cite that? Have you any idea of where Kanaka Bar or Lytton or Spuzzum or Coldwater or Douglas Lake are. I have, I've talked with these people, and buddy you're full of it. That's the most ridiculous thing said here so far.....another wild claim made by someone who doesn't know anything about the people or the place, and no citation to back it up. They not only use Nlaka'pamux when speaking English (as do the non-natives they live amongst), those in the Nicola Valley use Scwexw'mx and you see that in print usage and hear it every day. And I know one thing for sure, I wouldn't envy you if you tried to hold forth about what you just said in the Lytton Hotel or the Coldwater in Merritt......I wouldn't even want to be in the room for what would happen to you....Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 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) 06:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opening sentence[edit]

Good God, is this an ugly mouthful of an opening snetence:

The Nlaka'pamux or Nlakapamuk (/ɪŋkləˈkæpmə/ ing-klə-KAP-mə; Salish [nɬeʔképmx]), also previously known as the Thompson, Thompson River Salish, Thompson Salish, Thompson River Indians or Thompson River people, and historically as the Klackarpun, Haukamaugh, Knife Indians and Couteau Indians, are an indigenous First Nations people of the Interior Salish language group in southern British Columbia.

Can we cut it down to

The Nlaka'pamux or Nlakapamuk (/ɪŋkləˈkæpmə/ ing-klə-KAP-mə; Salish [nɬeʔképmx]) are an indigenous First Nations people of the Interior Salish language group in southern British Columbia.

and shove the rest of it down further in the lead? And isn't "indigenous" redundant to "First Nations"? I mean, are there non-indigenous First Nations people of the Interior Salish language group in southern British Columbia? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nlaka'pamux/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.

Major Interior Salish group; needs major article; currently has only stubbed language mention --Skookum1 (6 May 06)

Substituted at 05:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)