This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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 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.
Hi; I've just made the page for Taku River Tlingit First Nation and am asking someone who knows more to check it; I may be wrong in what I've stated, that they includes the Desleinn kwaan - they do have reserves on Teslin Lake, but it's not clear if there are any inhabitants (they may be fishing reserves, e.g.) and there's a separate Teslin Tlingit Council at Teslin, Yukon which must be Desleinn kwaan. Can someone who might know the details please make any needed changes to those pages? Inland Tlinkit/Inland Tlingit hasn't yet been made and maybe only need be a disambig page to those goernments, although really Atlin people and Teslin people could be made as ethno/history articles, in the same way that Auke people, Taku people etc e≈ist separate from any Native Alaskan government articles that may cover them.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This has now been changed to "pronounced /ˈklink-it/ or /ˈklink-it/", which is clearly redundant and is furthermore not very good usage of IPA. Someone familiar with the topic, please try to correct it. Lfh (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This line irks me a bit "Their name for themselves is Lingít". .... as if Tlingit and Tlinkit weren't. The L-only spelling is just the modern Tlingit language orthography, so far as I understand it. It's not like the other two spelling aren't what they call themselves. Just different spellings; the subtext when I see stuff like this is "the white man got it wrong"....well, no, when modern orthographies were developed for native languages there was an effort to use romanization differently, with some letters not meaning what they mean in English or other euro-languages. I mean, is there a difference in pronunciation between "Tlingit", "Tlinkit" or "Lingit"?? In English or in the Tlingit language?>?Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC) The details of the pronunciation, as I was informed personally by Gill Story are: The first "l" is, in fact, a voiceless fricative, equal to that with which the Welsh "ll" begins; the "n" in the middle is a genuine alveolar n, velar pronunciation being absent (difficult for most Europeans to do, Turkish speakers being an exception). The "k", if it is a k and not a g (She did not draws my attention to whether it is voiced or voiceless), is totally unaspirated. I'm not sure whether the final "t" is released, but I would think so, in which case it should have been th or, for purists, t followed by t with the circle on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Wood Green (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 February 2015 (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 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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: Move. While support for this move was less clear than at other similar RMs recently, supporters were still more numerous, and had stronger arguments. The stronger oppose votes from JorisvS and In ictu oculi referred to the WP:NCL guideline, which has traditionally recommended disambiguating both ethnic groups and their languages. However, they did not address the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concern, specifically the page view evidence and the fact that Tlingit already redirects to this article, and has for almost all of the three years since the page was moved to Tlingit people. As such, the invocations of the article titles policy (which trumps the guidelines) by several of the supporters become even more compelling. This, taken with what seems to be an emerging consensus that peoples are generally primary topics over their languages, leads me to find a consensus for this move. Cúchullaint/c 16:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. We have Wikipedia has policy that the people should go at "XXX people" and the language at "XXX language", with "XXX" being a dab page, see WP:NCL. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"We" is not all of Wikipedia obviously, it's you, Kwami and Uysvdi and other NCL regulars concocting a bad guideline (which is not a "policy") that is in conflict with various others. WP:UNDAB has been ignored by all of you as has what WP:CRITERIA and WP:ETHNICGROUP have to say about this.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, rephrased to the intended meaning. --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
And you still ignore WP:ETHNICGROUP and WP:CRITERIA re "precision" and "conciseness" (as were ignored in the crafting of the guideline that is your mantra); let's put it this way, re PRIMARYTOPIC "Tlingit" is a noun, "Tlingit people" is an adjectival=secondary use of "Tlingit" only, it is not a primary topic nor a common phrase except when meaning "people who are Tlingit". Your crew at NCLANG should really have taken the blinkers off when writing it, and as per WP:CRITERIA you should have observed the evidence of the "old consensus" in all the stand=alone names you went and applied your pet guideline too that was all over all the categories for main ethno articles. I mean, really, can you people look outside your own sandbox??Skookum1 (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So why don't you go there now and try to take them off? --JorisvS (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so I should wade into a bearpit that is home to three editors who have not just snubbed anything I say but also insulted and patronized me while complaining themselves of "personal attacks" for having their actions criticized? Yeah, right, as if per WP:WASTEOFTIME. No, this whole matter will go to RfC or maybe even ARBCOM; the high-handedness on this issue is getting rank. First guideline I'll be discussing to re all this is WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) which all of you make a point of pretending doesn't exist.
Fine, then don't, but then don't feel bad about it when people invoke that guideline to oppose moves you want. I wanted (and still want) to keep an open mind to your arguments. I have read WP:ETHNICGROUP and have found nothing that contradicts WP:NCL or with which I would disagree. I have at least assumed good faith and tried to be constructive and I'd like you to do the same. --JorisvS (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You should read ETHNICGROUPS a little more closely, then.Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Please point it out to me. --JorisvS (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ gimme a bit, it's dinnertime where I am and I've been at this all day, need a break; for one thing there is nothing there saying that "people" should be added to standalone names; it's much broader in view than NCLANG.Skookum1 (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So it doesn't say that "people" must be added, but says that it can be added and gives a few other options. That doesn't contradict WP:NCL in the latter's call for explicit disambiguation. WP:NCL also shows that there are other options besides adding "people", which is also in line with WP:ETHNICGROUP. I don't see the conflict. --JorisvS (talk) 12:05, 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 over whether every ethnicity in the world should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed according to your prejudice, you mean. Your prejudice is what got us here; and your "multitude" of undiscussed moves; your retort about a centralized discussion when you only held a localized, unadvertised one in crafting your bad guideline WP:NCLANG is hypocritical in the extreme.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So, you don't see the problem in the name conflict with Category:Tlingit people which is for "people who are Tlingit"?? The "FOO people" problem has been persistently ignored by the NCLANG FOO+people agenda, even though it was that very problem that led Uysvdi to swoop into a BC category and take the "people" off it in spite of the very clear conflict with other "FOO people" categories. Are naming conventions for articles than for categories? Since when? And re the self-preferred terms alluded to in in WP:NMET, these are all used in English primarily without the "people"; in such constructions that would generally refer to individuals e.g. "Tlingit people in Sitka said..." is not what the whole of all the peoples under the grouping Tlingit said, but what some Tlingit in Sitka said. Doesn't anybody else "get this"?? And re that same passage re self-preferred, it should be noted of the emergence of these terms into mainstream Canadian English....media, government, band et al. Rather than bothering wading into the close confines of the hostile NCL bearpit in the futile hope that meaningful reform is possible there, I'll take this up with the WP:NMET crowd whose guidelines are more "open" than the closed world of the laager-mentality I'm getting weary of here; wearing me out was part of last year's game too, I remember....but sane, informed people helped close that to a meaningful consensus respectful of both native-preferred terms (without "people") and to Canadian English. I didn't do parallel RMs on the language articles there, but in St'at'imcets' case only out of weariness.....the St'at'imc were bemused by my efforts on their half and one elder thanked me for it in passing, but said to the effect that white people who want to call them by old names are clueless and not worth talking to.Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually in this case there are very good grounds for Tlingit peoples as a solution given that each kwaan sees itself as a different people (Auke, Taku, Sheetka, Cape Fox, Tongass, Desleinn Kwanna [Teslin] etc). Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an important point.
Skookum, I have no problem with the idea that the article on the people should take center stage by occupying the bare name. But that's a broad issue that should be dealt with broadly. It shouldn't be a walled garden around BC, with special naming conventions just for them, but should apply everywhere. If you want to change the guideline, that should be a discussion for the guideline talk page. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
For a very long time, you have demonstrated your ignorance of the region and this is just another example. Only one of the Tlingit kwaans is HQ'd in BC, the Taku Tlingit First Nation (who are not the Taku people/Taku kwaan who are in Alaska), though the other Canadian kwaan in the Yukon the Desleinn kwaan (Teslin is the anglicized form, and is a placename in BC), all the rest are in Alaska which DUH isn't in British Columbia. The naming conventions that mandate the special names in BC already exist in the guidelines; your pretense that they don't is RUBBISH. And in case you've forgotten, read the closer's comments on Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move again re such usages; this case, the Tlingit title, is not one of those because Tlingit is the extant full-time English usage; someone had once tried to move this to Lingit (L in Tlingit orthography is tl/lh) which is the native form; but unlike St'at'imc and the others in my "walled garden" which are part of regular English "Lingit" is not. "Tlinkit" is by the way the Canadian spelling for at least one of the groups in Canada.`Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 22 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 02:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion and a subsequent unanimous vote in favor of explicit disambiguation of people–language pairs. "Tlingit" can refer to both the people and the language, which means it falls under "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles". "Tlingit" was made a dab page in response to this guideline, only to be made a redirect later without discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that a template or just a copy-paste you're using to repeat your post across all these RMs? here are view stats that debunk the premise that "people-language pairs" are a legitimate primarytopic equation, which is utter bunk:
That's over a 4:1 ratio in favour of the people article as PRIMARYTOPIC. Your guideline is flawed and the POV premise advanced by amateur linguists in its utterly false, as demonstrable in this case and countless others.Skookum1 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Skookum, that's a good argument for changing the guideline, so why don't you argue over there to change the guideline, rather than wasting everyone's time with a hundred move requests? If people agreed that the article on the people should occupy FOO, then all these page moves would be simplicity itself. What's making it so involved is trying to argue that every article is an exception.
(Also, for the numbers we should consider that "Tlingit" is a rd. to the people, so we need to discount the 1,100 hits from dabs. Still a clear majority for the people, but it's good to be accurate.) — kwami (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
when you have been rude and insulting at NCET's talkpage just like you have been in these RM, why go to NCL when I've alreayd confronted the core group of its authors on the issue - and only NOW you agree. There is no need for discussion; the flaws in your guideline have been pointed out by others than me....the place to discuss it perhaps is RfC or another process; the official hounding of me on a partisan basis is already at ANI, where I was going to take it myself about all of you and your behaviour and regularly hostile tone and activities. The topic-changing in Usyvdi's Chipewyan post was all too reminiscent of your behaviour in last year's RMs, which also validated the use of modern, non offensive names that you have shown yourself to be fond of. NCL needs discussion, but it's obvious from here and NCET that it's pointless to try to have a "proper discussion" about it with the crowd who have been the most virulent and persistent in attacking and opposing me and insulting me on a regular basis. Your sniping at CANENGL as in the misplaced "walled garden" of BC English above is typical of the attitude you have to guidelines and style issues that are in the way of your agenda; and the Tlingit are only barely in BC, and overwhelmingly ni Alaska......the real matter here is not CANENGL, it is TITLE, which the "walled garden" of NCL seems to have made a point of deliberately ignoring, as indeed you all have ignored t hose many people who cite TITLE and CSG and NCET here, while all you want to do and JorisV and Usyvdi et al want to talk about is NCL....and me...targeting me as a tactic was noted in last year's RM and you were dressed down for it, and those precedents re people-names you continue to ignore as if they did not happen...as if they did not exist....why try to have a discussion with a group that persistently insults me and misrepresents what I have said, conflates criticism of the guideline and conduct related to it as personal attacks, while continuing their own attacks against me? Your nastiness at NCET, and here, is just part of a long hostility towadrs me being in your way; it is you and your "followers" who do not know how to have, nor want to have, a "proper discussion". What is wrong with NCL is clear as glass and should be changed summarily without the need for more bafflegab and evasion, and ongoing sniping and derision and evasion by counterattack and insults towards my personality and writing style; not about the issues; all you and your kind want to talk about is the guideline you know now needs fixing and you.....want me to come to the discussion now after being a complete [expletive avoided] about it, and obstinate in the extreme; NCL was not unanimous, and it should not have been used to affect people articles without consulting other guidelines and also applied only by proper one-by-one RM discussions; as CambridgeBayWeather and various others have pointed out, the guidelines that apply already exist; it is NCL, and NCLers, that are out of step and refuse to acknowledge OR properly discuss this; instead launching a campaign of harassment towards me, now at a completely one-sided ANI; I'll be going higher than ANI in response...damn, more procedure, less action, just more time wasted in the way of applying mandates on CANSTYLE and TITLE and more; your invitation to me is a sick joke.Skookum1 (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2014 (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.
The article could benefit from a clearer explanation of the concept of the at.oow.
The Tlingits passed down at.oow(s) or blankets that represented trust. Only a Tlingit Indian can inherit one but they can also pass it down to someone they trust, who becomes responsible for caring for it but does not rightfully own it.
Someone reading this would not whether at.oows and blankets are two different things or if at.oow is a Tlingit term for blanket (which I gather would not be correct). Also, the unusual (but I take it correct) punctuation of the word would be likely to confuse people. Should the word be placed in italics? 850 C (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed the entry for now, as a standard prerequisite for inclusion in these lists is if the entry has its own Wikipedia article to establish notability. AtticusX (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)