Talk:Chetco people

Estimation of Current Chetco Tribal Size
I removed the reference that the current size of the Chetco tribe is only 40 people as grossly erroneous. Although the reference listed (from the "Curry Pilot") gives the number at 40, there's a letter to the editor ("Pilot" - Letter to the Editor) in which the writer claims to be Chetco and have 28 people in her family. I'm also a Chetco and have over 40 people in my family (starting from my grandmother on down), which doesn't intersect with the letter writer's. 40 + 28 = 68, which is over 1.5x the referenced number. Unfortunately, I can't give a better number at this time, but would appreciate help looking for references on a more accurate number. However, I felt that the estimation of 40 remaining Chetco needed to be removed until we find that better number, as it gives an incorrect impression that the people are dying out, which is not the case.Sutematsu (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem is that Wikipedia articles need to follow reliable sources and, while I do not doubt what you say, unfortunately your experience and knowledge are not acceptable sources for references here. Is there any sort of official Chetco tribal organization which has publications or websites? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. The Chetco people are just one tribe of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz, and while I know the confederation keeps tribal roles, I don't believe that they keep track of which individual tribe people belong to. In any case, this is a question close to my heart, so I'll be checking it out. With any luck we can get an accurate number in here. Sutematsu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Move discussion in progress
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 09:45, 12 March 2014 (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The result of the move request was: not moved after nomination withdrawn. Xoloz (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Chetco people → Chetco – target started as redirect to "Rogue River (tribe)" by Ish Ishwar on May 29 2006 then redirected to "Tolowa" by April Arcus on May 12 2006 then turned into a disambiguation page by Ruhrfisch on June 27 2010 People article started as "Chetco (tribe)" by Ruhrfisch, on June 27 2010, then moved to current title by Kwami on Oct 26 2010. The river, named after the people, and the peak and the weather effect are hardly anywhere close to being PRIMARYTOPIC; Chetco should be moved to Chetco (disambiguation) and Chetco people should be moved to Chetco as PRIMARYTOPIC and UNDAB. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 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 at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people".  — kwami (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412  T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose considering several articles use the term "Chetco," disambiguation is helpful in this case is, especially considering that this is not a particularly well known group of Tolowa. Removing the disambiguation does not improve anything. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment: upon closer inspection, Chetco River is arguably the primary topic for "Chetco," not the ethnic group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Oppose – a term with this many uses shouldn't have a primarytopic. I with Skookum1 would stop pushing toward more ambiguous titles with moves like this.   Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment BDD clearly disagrees with you as he has moved many this morning to undisambiguated titles, see here. He's not the only one, as various posts by Floydian and CambridgeBayWeather and others on many related RMs demonstrate.Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal Above point concerning the many which have had "people" rightly stripped from their titles as they are demonstrably primarytopics notwithstanding, I've just run viewstats and agree to withdraw this one; though I still think a less confusing title than "FOO people" should be found for all those cases where a dab remains necessary.
 * "Chetco River" was viewed 774 times last month (March)
 * "Chetco people" was viewed 221 times
 * "Chetco" was viewed 63 times.
 * nomination withdrawn.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 2 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.