Talk:Tongva/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tongva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

8,000 year old milling site

I don't think the 8,000 year old milling site described in the paragraph at the end of the article is Tongva. From what I understand, the Tongva (and other related Shoshonean/Uto-Aztecan peoples) came into southern California a couple of thousand years ago, and that there were several waves of indigenous peoples of other languages groups inhabiting the area before that. A map in the "California Indians" room of the Southwest Museum shows these migrations, and also the chronology at the base of the Watts Towers has a similar description. So I don't know why the archaeologists were quoted as saying that the site was Tongva, unless the Tongva are the only pre-European people they know of who lived in the area. Does anybody have further information about this? Badagnani 05:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, I have heard similar info. There were certainly groups who lived here previously, including 13,000 year-old Arlington Springs Woman out on Santa Rosa Island, California. However until we get a source identifying it otherwise we can leave it here. -Will Beback 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tongva language

Is their language extinct? Several internet links state that it is. I've assumed that it is extinct, in this article and in Tongva language. Alexander 007 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No one speaks it as their birth language, but it exists in a reconstructed form, and is used ceremonially by some Tongva (I'll look up the URL of our streaming video of the BioTrek grand opening, where Mark Acuña, the Cultural Liaison of the Tongva/Gabrielino Tribal Council, gave a short speech in Tongva). I also changed the past tense to present in that article--the Tongva still exist.--Curtis Clark 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I actually knew that they were still around as a people, but I overlooked that in my sentence :). Alexander 007 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

EXCELLENT QUESTION!! I have it on good authority from a local student of the Southwest cultures that the last Tongva-speaking descendant, a woman, has past away --- BUT not before she left a glossary with the people at the Southwest Museum. These folks do special ceremonies with excerpts from the language, but for all intents and purposes, the language is dead. The descendants of the Gabrielenos do still exist even though they were given the brand of "extinction" since 1900. It seemed to be politically expedient to no longer recognize them as a blood strain of people. This has been reversed by professed descendants. Magi Media 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media.

"Blood strain" as applied by outsiders is generally regarded to be racist, although individual Nations can be very picky about tribal membership. There are people, most with at least some demonstrated Tongva ancestry, who are endeavoring to reclaim the Tongva language. I think it is POV to call any language "dead"; the NPOV approach is to explain where it stands in terms of birth speakers, recorded speech, written works, written vocabulary, etc.--Curtis Clark 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin has been "dead" for over 1200 years and yet is still taught and used. Let's not be premature to call the Tongva language or tribe "dead". 500 languages were spoken in California 200 years ago. We should note the extent of any of them are still used. Language reclamation efforts are certainly notable. -Will Beback 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me back up here for a second

For 1: The expression "blood line" --- racist or racial? I am speaking endearingly of a nation of people who walked this part of the planet before we did. But, OK, I am used to the need for PC language the same way we get it in local politics. So don't anybody get me wrong. In the Arroyo Seco along side Altadena we had the Hahamog-na tribe which has captured my attention and admiration for a lost nation of people looking not too far back. And in Pasasdena we had the Sistikig-na, and in Arcadia we had the Aleupking-na with no tribute to their name applied to a modern day location. The Anecdote always was: "AZUSA, everything from A to Z in the USA." Well, joke's on us, it was named for Chief Azuksag-na. And when I read (in history) that the Gabrielenos had become extinct due to the effects of "Old World diseases," I bought it. But when I found out that someone with a percentage of Gabrieleno in them had come forward to refute such a claim, I applauded it. So if there is some other euphonious expression to be used in place of that one, then fill in the blank. Now let's move on.

Wanted Dead or Alive

For 2: It is possible that the definition of "dead language" has taken a shift to satisfy a group of history revisionists. But let me tell you, I speak five languages: English, French, German, Spanish and Vietnamese. These are all languages used by cultures or nationalities as a primary means of communication with each other. They are subject to evolution, or "corruption," in spellings, pronunciations and colloquialisms. The only group that uses Latin is the Roman Catholic Church, and at that, only an elite few. As a Catholic myself, I have studied Latin, and as an altar boy have even used it, but I hardly consider myself a part of a nation or culture that communicates with other Catholics by it. Yet in a discussion with one of my former Pastors, a man from the old school of Latin, we did agree that Latin has in a way "corrupted" into other languages, namely, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, etc. So in that context, you might not consider Latin "dead." Where does that leave Tongva? Is it currently used by a nation or culture of people as a primary communication? Or has it evolved into another language? For all intents and purposes, it's a dead language.

Gabrieleno and Tongva

Lastly, I would like to suggest that the title of the article be moved to Gabrieleno/Tongva. This mostly for the benefit of our Wikipedia readers. When I punched in Gabrieleno or variants of the spelling, I either ended up in search hell, or on the Tongva page which looked like a misdirect. As of 1994 California has recognized the Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation, and in 2001 a California Congresswoman proposed a bill that would give national recognition to the Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation. It has been suggested that the Tongva people might prefer the use of their name, and rightfully so. Before I ever heard of Tongva, I either knew the individual tribe names or the collective expression Gabrieleno. So for the benefit of our readers who may be approaching the subject the same way that I have, we might should not hide the Gabrieleno name behind a bunch of redirects AND properly stress the etymologies of each.

Thank you each and every for your attention Magi Media 06:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Tongva seems fine to me; the redirects (including Gabrieleno) do seem to be operational; which alternate name is not working for you? The Spanish names are discussed in the article. Badagnani 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned "blood strain" in the context of terms such as "mulatto", "quadroon", and "octoroon" used to refer to blacks in the South. I was not trying to be PC; those terms are widely regarded as racist, since people with only a small proportion of "Negro blood" were regarded as black for the purposes of segregation.

And I've heard it where Native Americans seek to have as little as 1/16 portion to be included. I was not using the expression to keep from selling them whiskey or rifles.

Plant taxonomists also communicate to some extent in Latin; descriptions of new taxa of plants must still be written in Latin. At any rate, to fail to distinguish between, say, Minoan and Tongva by lumping them both as "dead" is simply imprecise. To quote Monty Python, "I'm feeling better now. I think I'll go for a walk."

I fail to see the parallel of, say, the Pope's encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) and the latest thing I've read in Tongva. And I have a hard time considering that excerpts or language fragments constitute a live language. Reclaiming the language is an interesting project, and how that is to be derived will be interesting. But does the language (any language) have a heart beat, or is it just being resuscitated? We just have different POVs on what a "dead language" is. To quote Monty Python: "This is not an argument, it's a contradiction! -No, it's not! -It is! -It's not!"

Fixed (Someone else started the process, and I finished it).--Curtis Clark 07:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is even an external link at the bottom of the article that says Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Web Site. Magi Media 14:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I think you're right about the redirect being confusing, especially for unfamiliar or first-time readers of Wikipedia. However, I think the way to fix this is to mention the long-standing Spanish name in the lead sentence, using bold text to identify it as an article subject. The explanation of the origin of that name could stay at the end of the lead paragraph where it is now. This way, the words "Tongva" and "Gabrielino" can both be in bold at the beginning of the article, but the article can keep what I can only assume is the name preferred by the tribe itself. Mike Dillon 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

May want to see the city of Irvine, CA's official website History of the City

Irvine, CA's official website History of the City states, Archeological research establishes prehistoric man in the Irvine area at least 12,000 years ago, possibly even 18,000 years ago. And, Gabrielino Indians moved into the Irvine area 2,000 years ago, establishing dozens of villages. One village was located near the present San Joaquin marsh and another near the San Joaquin golf course.

Somebody may want to include this in this article. Ronbo76 06:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

High importance

I agree with User:Anlace that this article should be of High importance on WikiProject Southern California, as it is about the indigenous people of the Los Angeles region. Badagnani 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly. The Tongva and their relatives to the South, the Juaneño, were the people who were here when the Europeans first arrived. JimCubb 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent history

It appears that recent history is leading to a battle for publicity, which is stretching into Wikipedia. I question the NPOV of that section. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.50.137 (talk • contribs)

If there is a dispute between two rival groups, and it is sourced, it appears notable and suitable for inclusion. I don't see what the POV would be. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are no longer available, and as such I question their inclusion in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.50.137 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Story board

Should we mention Toypurina, the 24-year old Tongva shaman (medicine-woman) who in 1785 led an unsuccessful revolt against the Spanish at the San Gabriel Mission? It is an important episode in the history of Native resistance to colonization.Rockero

Seeing as the Tongva history we have jumps from the 1500s to 1990s, there are literally hundreds of years of history missing. The episode you mention would definitely be welcome, as well as any others in the Tongvas' history. It's a story that is completely unknown to most Americans (or Angelinos, for that matter). Badagnani 02:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I might suggest that if these isolated stories are told in the article, but have no specific relevance to the historical continuum, that they be put under a subtitle and then each story subsequently sub-subtitled. Would make for interesting reading AND these should be well bibliographed or referenced. Magi Media 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Tongva Language is alive and well: go to: http://keepersofindigenousways.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.12.253 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"People of the Earth"

Any evidence of this translation prior to the 2004 booklet I could google? The claim shows up on Wikipedia even in 2002, so it is perfectly possible that the author of the 2004 publication just took this off our site. It's not as if she would bother to cite any references at all. Any unreferenced claim to this effect which dates to after 2002 should be suspected of being inspired by Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that this translation was lifted from the tongva.com website. It appeared there in September 2001 (it was not there in July 2001). So, for better or worse, it can be attributed to the website of the Tongva Tribal Council. It is not unreasonable to assume there is some evidence behind this, but as of now, we do not have any reference to such evidence. The language is extinct, and as such prone to fake etymology and ghost-words turning up. I'll try to pinpoint a better reference. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So far I have been able to figure out that the name of Earth in Tongva is Tamaayawut[1]. This doesn't prove anything, of course, but it doesn't exactly lend additional credibility to the claim that "Tongva" means "people of the Earth". --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, I have now phrased the lead so as to correspond to what sources we have. here is something else, apparently Tuhu means "old woman" and is an epithet of (Mother) Earth. Tujunga means "old woman's place". Rancho Tujunga was a toponym in the San Gabriel area. The rationale behind this seems to be that the form Tongva is somehow connected to Tujunga. This is probably etymological speculation. The rationale would then be that the self-designation Tongva would be in origin a term designating "the people of Rancho Tujunga", and the name of Rancho Tujunga would in turn be somehow related to the name of Mother Earth. In this roundabout way, it may be possible to construct the claim that "Tongva means people of the earth". But this is of course second-guessing etymological speculation motivated by linguistic revivalism. All we know for certain at this point is that Tongva is a name recorded in ca. 1900 which rose to prominence during the 1990s. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Tovangar is a word used by some Tongva to mean "the world" (my reference, not at hand, is a thin saddle-stitch pamphlet on the Tongva language), and I think that is the source of the supposed etymological connection. Urhur has also been equated to "earth", but it seems to mean more toward "soil".--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in these and other vocabulary items, so please insert them next time you are near this pamphlet. I'd also be interested in its publication year (after 1990)? Perhaps this booklet also has a compilation of all known sources of vocabulary? The Tongva language wisely lists vocabulary by publication. The bulk of known vocabulary seems to be due to Merriam (1903), but I wonder how much is known about the content of the "unpublished field notes" of Harrington's, and what is the extent of vocabulary collected before 1900. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Galloway, Anne. 1978. Továngar (WORLD): A Gabrielino Word Book. Malki Museum Press. "We know no Indian name for these people...." It has extensive word lists, and it looks like I'll need to OCR it. Tongva language says "(Merriam refers to them as the Tongvā)". Mark Acuña, Cultural Liaison of the San Gabriel group, told me (and what I've read of Merriam seems to confirm) that it was probably TONG-vay, and people unfamiliar with Merriam's transcription consistently mispronounced it. Mark was the one who first equated Tongva and Továngar (which he pronounced Tovangár), and at this point I'm not sure I ever saw the correlation in print prior to its appearance on the website.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the -wut suffix in Tamaayawut generally means big: tamawut, mockingbird, "big mouth"; hunut or hunwut, bear, "big badger". It would be interesting to know what tamaaya meant.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

History of organizations, etc.

The text currently reads as follows (bolding mine):

Since that point, the slash group has hired former state senator Richard Polanco to be its chief executive officer, while the hyphen group has allied with Stein and issued warrants for the arrest of Polanco and members of the hyphen group.

Should this read "and members of the slash group"? That would make a lot more sense in context, given the description of inter-group conflicts and nothing otherwise to suggest there is any kind of internal conflict within the hyphen group. --Saforrest (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

== Tribal name ==Italic text

There is a faction (see Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians and this site) that claims that the name Tongva is not correct for this group, and the name Kizh should be preferred instead. The name Tongva is sourced to a single oral history recollection recorded in 1903, some 130 years or more after the tribe had begun to be called the Gabrieleños. The Kizh name was used by ethnographer Horatio Hale (referenced here in 1846, and Johann Karl Eduard Buschmann wrote his treatise Die Sprachen Kizh und Netela von Neu-Californien in 1855.(See [2] page 56.) Please comment here or at Talk:Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians regarding this controversy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The author approached me off-wiki, and I responded but never heard back. From the lack of response here and at all the AFDs, he seems to be unwilling to engage. On the face of it, it is blatant POV pushing by one of the squabbling Tongva (Gabrielino) factions. Sadly, there may be some truth to it (I've never talked to anyone who was confident that "Tongva" was the original endonym), but until the author is willing to engage and discuss, there's not much we can do other than eliminate the POV forks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of one bad editor is not really the question here. I believe, based on the sources, that this article should at least mention the name Kizh as one of the alternatives for this people. Once that is done, a redirect from Kizh or Kizh people can be created to point to this page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem including the information, based on your references above, but it raises a question about the article title. An NPOV approach, unburdened by a previous article history, would argue for Gabrielino people, and then discuss the use of putative endonyms by the different groups. Does that seem like a reasonable approach?--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It does to me, but I am completely non-knowledgeable in this arena. I would prefer the input of better experts in the field. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice requested.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies here. "Tongva" gets 264,000 Google hits, while "Kizh" gets 76,000, so "Tongva" appears to be the commonly-used name in English, at least at this time. Fifty years ago, the article would have been under "Gabrielino", and if "Kizh" becomes the accepted name in the future, that's what it should move to then, but a move at this time does not seem warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it move back to Gabrielino. Both Kizh and Tongva seem to be POV, being supported by different tribal factions. gabrielino OR gabrieleño gives 312,000 ghits, tongva gives 264,000. By renaming it Gabrielino people or even Gabrieleño people, we go with a well-established English name that has no POV issues.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Gabrielino has only a thousand more hits than Tongva, and in light of the objections of all the people of the tribe to that name, going back to it would be a very bad idea. It's also quite mistaken to say that "Gabrielino" was no POV issues, since it implies that they didn't exist as a recognizable people until the Spanish came along and founded the mission. I'd certainly object to the change, and I have no connection with the tribe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians obviously does not object to Gabrieleño/Gabrielino, they are behind the ham-fisted attempts to change the article (I have been corresponding with them and explaining the wrongness of their approach to Wikipedia), and they object to "Tongva". Although some members of the Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribal Council of San Gabriel have expressed to me that they find Gabrieleño/Gabrielino objectionable, it is still part of their name, and to the best of my knowledge all the groups that claim to represent the Tongva/Gabrieleño/Gabrielino use either Gabrieleño or Gabrielino in their names, so your statement that "in light of the objections of all the people of the tribe to that name" is unsupported. The evidence for the use of "Kizh" as an endonym is adequate in my view for mention in the article, but obviously totally inadequate for naming. Since all factions use Gabrieleño or Gabrielino, one faction objects to Tongva, and Gabrieleño/Gabrielino has long been an English name for the group, it seems like a reasonable approach.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. With "Tongva" and "Gabrielino" essentially tied for usage, the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, one or the other should be the title of the article, but since a significant portion of the tribe objects to "Gabrielino", it should not be used, on the grounds that we generally allow a people to choose their own name. The connection of "Gabrielino" to the Spanish missions -- meaning that it is not a name chosen by the tribe, but imposed on them from the outside -- sullies it as a choice.

In any event, I urge you not to make any change without a consensus to do so, which means if you are serious about upsetting the apple cart, you need to run an RM discussion. I'm quite sure that any change of title without consensus will be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly plan an RM; I just wanted to test the waters first. Your phrase "upsetting the apple cart" suggests that you have a stake in this that is other than academic. You keep asserting 'a significant portion of the tribe objects to "Gabrielino"', but you have yet to provide me with a source. You say 'we generally allow a people to choose their own name', but I have provided a source indicating that some proportion of the Tongva object to that name, and prefer Gabrieleño. I happen to dislike "Gabrielino", too, and had been calling the tribe Tongva for years, until I learned that some fair number of them object to that name. So we have three names in play: Gabrieleño/Gabrielino, used by every group purporting to represent the Tongva, but alleged by you to be objectionable; Tongva, a proposed endonym from a single source, widely used in modern literature, but documented to be objectionable to some Tongva; and Kizh, a proposed endonym from two sources which is virtually unknown and which is accepted only by the group who reject Tongva.

The essence of WP:AGF is that, unless you have a damn good reason for doing otherwise, when another editor in good standing tells you "X", you should accept that "X" is true - so I'll tell you one more time, and I expect that this will not come up again: I have no connection with the tribe whatsoever, I have no stake in this dispute, I am not Native American, I do not live in Los Angeles, I am calling them as I see them from the evidence as I understand it. Please restrict your future comments to the issues and not the editors. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add the documentation for the use of "Kizh" (still getting some references together, and the LOC website will be down until Tuesday), and worry about the RM when that is done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually wasn't suggesting a move. Just an inclusion of information that may or may not be controversial. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made the additions to document the use of the names Kizh and Tobikhar. I know there's more to be done; I'll probably get back to it in a couple of weeks, and start the RM then.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tongva people → Gabrieleño people – All groups that claim to represent the indigenous inhabitants of the Los Angeles region use either "Gabrieleño", "Gabrieliño" or "Gabrielino" as part of their names:

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation Tribal Council
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribal Council of San Gabriel (currently a dead-link)

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians rejects the use of "Tongva" as an endonym and instead supports the word "Kizh" (see the article for references). To the best of my knowledge, none of the other groups have accepted "Kizh" as a legitimate endonym.

Thus, calling this article Tongva people takes one side of a conflict among the Gabrieleño people and violates WP:NPOV. Although many people, both Indian and non-Indian, are unhappy with the Spanish exonyms based on the name of the mission, all the formal groups accept it. Based on a search through Google Books, "Gabrieleño" seems to be the original spelling. Redirects should be created at Gabrieliño people and Gabrielino people. --Curtis Clark (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - "Gabrielino" comes from Father Gabriel, one of the mission padres in the area these people lived it. It is a name imposed on them by Europeans, not one used by the people themselves, who object to it. The groups mentioned above predate the movement to convert to the tribe's self-given name. Moving the article to "Gabrieleno" would be an insult to these people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The name comes from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, where they were enslaved. No member of the tribe I have ever talked to likes the name, but they all use it. If you'll check the references, you'll find that every "endonym" was recorded by a non-Indian. "Tongva" is effectively the self-selected name of part of the tribe, and "Kizh" the self-selected name of another part. By using "Tongva", Wikipedia sides with one group over another.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  - So your solution is to use a name imposed on them from the outside, by people who mistreated them, and that they don't like. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    - Your solution seems to be to leave it at a name actively opposed by some of the tribe (unless you have a generally-accepted endonym up your sleeve). Would you support moving it to Kizh people?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      - Don't think so. My impression is that "Tongva" is accepted by a majority of the tribe and Kizh by only a minority. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        Tongva is also more accepted by WP:COMMONNAME. Go to the LA Times website and compare a search for "Tongva" with a search for "Kivh", which gets no hits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        How about this as a possible compromise? - I'm seeing in a wide variety of sources the hyphenated or slashed composite name "Gabrielino-Tongva". How would you feel about that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        I was fine with "Tongva", and that's the term we use at BioTrek, but, based on their web site and private communications, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians is not, and would prefer "Kizh". In addition, according to the article the hyphen and slash separators are used distinctively by different groups (and no en-dashes).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        With respect, I believe your private communications have misled you, and I don't feel at all comfortable with basing an article title on what is essentially WP:OR, so if Gabrielino-Tonga (in whatever form) is not acceptable to you as a compromise, then "Tongva" which (by your own admission above) is the common usage as this time, is where the article should remain.
        I suggest that the closer of the move request also look at the discussion above this, which goes over the same ground, and essentially comes to the same conclusion - that is, there is no consensus for a move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        Very little respect, actually, or none, depending on whom you are accusing of OR. The private communications repeat what is on the web site, and both show that there is a group within the tribe that rejects "Tongva" as a false endonym. --Curtis Clark (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        @Curtis: There is a tendency among people who have suggested an RM, or an AfD, to answer every comment from every other editor who comments. I suggest you stop, since such behavior usually indicates an undue NPOV interest in the discussion. Let the discussion takes its course, and please don't feel the need to respond to every comment that differs from your opinion. Such behavior can actually work against you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Luiseño people, from Mission San Luís Rey de Francia, rather than Payomkawichum. Juaneño, from Mission San Juan Capistrano, rather than Acjachemem.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The only Tongva people I've met IRL are affiliated with AICLS, but they clearly used the term "Tongva" not "Gabrieleño". -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tongva/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.

good written start, needs formatting, revision, map, more refs --Skookum1 (11 May 06)

Is more detailed now, but lacks many citations --Miskwito 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2017

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 (non-admin closure). SST flyer 11:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Tongva people → Tongva – "People" is not necessary here, as the base name Tongva already redirects here and it's the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The change better suits Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and the general WP:CRITERIA, as well as other articles on Native American peoples such as Muskogee, Luiseño, Sioux, and Cahuilla. See precedent at many previous RM discussions. Also, in response to the previous RM, "Tongva" is definitely the more common name over Gabrieleño. The latter is obviously still in use, but "Tongva" returns far more hits on JSTOR ([3] vs. [4]). Cúchullain ^t/c 03:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 09:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Support, a quick search validates the argument above. 'The Tongva' is the WP:COMMONNAME way these people are referred to in sources. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:24, 10 January 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tongva. 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:

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) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted two edits by user who reverted explained changes and restored dead links and impromperly formatted cites, as well as a ref that has no mention of the subject

I've reverted Sumanuil's reversion of edits I had made to bring content in line with its citations, removed some badly sourced material, and added some new information, with sources. I left an explanation of my changes, then this person restored dead links and improperly formatted cites, as well as a ref that has no mention of the subject it was supposed to support. The Old San Gabriel Mission doesn't mention Merriam or the word "Tongva" or any permutation of it. I suspect that he or she didn't even bother to check the changes or the sources, based on their smart-ass and insulting summary, "Still not fooling anyone", which is uncalled for and violates the policy of "Assume Good Faith". Carlstak (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: The Dig Magazine online article that I've removed quotes Cindi Alvitre as the source of the information (in a casual conversation as she sat on a countertop) that "the name Tongva has become increasingly preferred as a self-designation since the 1990s"; but she provides no evidence to support this claim. I also removed a cite of "The Old San Gabriel Mission", which doesn't mention Merriam or the word "Tongva" or any permutation of it, the content it was supposed to support.

It appears to me that the disputant here, Harry A. White, is correct, although his wall of text is nearly impenetrable (at least to my eyes). He refers to an essay by E. Gary Stickel, director of Environmental Research Archaeologists: a Scientific Consortium, called Why the Original Indian Tribe of the Greater Los Angeles Area is called Kizh not Tongva, which makes a good case that this people should not be called Tongva. Stickel is an expert in cultural resources, his bona fides are impeccable. I imagine that respectable sources might contend otherwise, but it would take better material than the somewhat shoddy stuff user Sumanuil restored when he reverted my recent edits at Tongva. Carlstak (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So this editor Sumanuil, has reverted again, with the summary, "I fixed the deadlink, but it was part of your edit, so I had to do it afterward." which doesn't address any of the substantive changes, and he's not engaging (so far) with my comments here on the talk page.

I looked further in the article's revision history, and saw this summary attached to a reversion by Sumanuil, "I know that's you. Using a different username isn't helping.", surely a reference to our voluble disputant, but Sumanuil's later summary, "Still not fooling anyone." accompanying his first reversion of my edit implies that he thinks I'm that guy, which leads me to believe that he's reverting without even looking at the material, or checking to see if the edit was made by a different editor than the suspected sock.

Do you care to weigh in on this, Cúchullain? I know you are very interested in the history of Native peoples. Carlstak (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The US gov. has never signed a treaty with the Tongva and California has not recognized the Tongva.

1. The US gov. has never signed a treaty with the Tongva, promising 8.5 million acres of land for reservations. https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/heizer1972.htm 2. California has not recognized the Tongva. http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx Please verify. I'm unable to sign Harryawhite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryawhite (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC) References 5 and 34 refer to failed Senate Bill 1134 in which the hoodwinked California Senate believed that the Gabrielenos of San Gabriel (original, legitimate tribe) and the G-T, the non-tribe imposters of Santa Monica were one and the same. They are not. Please check 1 and 2 above.Harryawhite (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry, this is good stuff. I've taken the liberty of creating a new section for your comments, since they don't actually pertain to the section I started above. That way, it will be easier for readers of this page to notice your points and understand what is going on. You know that I am sympathetic to your point of view, and if it were up to me I would change the name of the article to Gabrieleño people or Gabrieleno people.

Even though Gabrieleño is the name given by the Spanish to Indians living in the vicinity of Mission San Gabriel, whether they were of the same so-called "tribe" or not, it's far less controversial than Tongva, which I agree is incorrect. Because disputes about content and names are settled on WP by discussion on article talk pages, or at least attempting to settle them by reaching a consensus, we can't just arbitrarily make such changes and expect them to stand if a number of other editors object.

The only mechanism we have for deciding which iteration of an article whose content is disputed will stand relies on citing reliable sources (as you know, WP has policies for determining what constitutes a reliable source). Unfortunately, at least from your and my point of view, the name Tongva has become accepted in academic scholarship, which means that there are many "reliable sorces" by WP standards calling the Gabrieleño people or peoples by this misnomer. I'm afraid it will be a long, hard slog to make a case and win consensus for changing the name of the article and its content to reflect the more nuanced scholarship regarding these points, which seems to be a minority point of view in academia nowadays.

I have limited time and energy to devote to this worthy cause since I have other projects I'm working on, as well as operating a business. I would encourage you to present your case in concise paragraphed form (using colons to indent) rather than in overwhelming walls of text that discourage other editors from reading what you have to say. Support your points with reliable sources and references as you did here. It's the only way to get anywhere in a dispute like this. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes. Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Harry, I've added the information you pointed to, along with the cite of Heizer's paper, to the lede of the article. It's awkward to use the term "Tongva", but until the name of the article is changed, we have to work with it. Carlstak (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A new section for my comments, Chief Ernie and and his son Andrew thank you. I am retired, all the time in the world for my new found friends the true Gabrielenos, a most worthy cause.Harryawhite (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to help get more accurate information into the article, Harry. Thanks for the links, and don't hesitate to point to other references you come across, especially from academic sources. I don't always have the leisure, but I am working in my spare time to assemble cultural information written by academic Kizh/Gabrieleño people themselves. Carlstak (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)