Talk:Nuu-chah-nulth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MadelaineNabbe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the article
This page should be retitled Nuu-Chah-Nulth. Nootka is a misnomer.


 * Well, there is a page for Nuu-Chah-Nulth that is redirected to Nootka. So, anyone who searches for Nuu-Chah-Nulth, finds the page in question...


 * There is a convention, in English, and in other languages, to use the names of geographic locations that are traditional in those languages -- even when knowledgeable people know that the locals have a totally different name. Locals call it Deutchland, English speakers call it Germany, French speakers call it Allegmagne. It is not an insult to Deutchlanders that we call them Germans. When HMCS Chicoutimi had its accident an Irish coroner was totally unable to say Chicoutimi. It is hard to understand why. But you and I would almost certainly stumble if we tried to pronouce a Gaelic place-name.


 * Should I try my best to use the aboriginal place-names? When should I try to use aboriginal place-names? Should I try to use them when I am probably going to mangle them? I think I probably shouldn't try to use an aboriginal place-name when it will confuse my listener.


 * Have you considered putting a wikiquote of the correct pronunciation of Nuu-Chah-Nulth? Geo Swan 19:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, on the west coast of Vancouver Island the term Nootka is rarely used. In newspapers, museums, and in speech Nuu-Chah-Nulth is much more common. It's possible this is a local thing, and that Nootka is the more commonplace term in the outside world. But it struck me as odd.


 * BTW, Nootka IS a place name - eg Nootka Sound, Nootka Island. That is the correct, established name for those locations. But the name of the native group is more properly Nuu-Chah-Nulth, in my opinion.

True, but the place name was imposed by the same people who declared the people to be Nootka: so I don't think that this fact has any bearing on the question at hand. As mentioned, the Nuu-chah-nulth themselves have far older, still existent place names for these locations, so to refer to the European names as 'correct' is a matter of perspective....woodschmoe, Dec. 2005


 * Nuu-Chah-Nulth is approximately pronounced noo-CHAW-nulth, but I would be unqualified to render it into Sampa or IPA. :) BeavisSanchez


 * I have added some information about the origin of the name. I think that should suffice, as opposed to a rename of the article. I've also broken the article into sections, as I would (eventually) like to add some info about their mythology. BeavisSanchez


 * The information added about the origin of the Nootka and Nuu-Chah-Nulth names is helpful, but I too believe this article should be renamed. The article relates to a people, and they have the right to name themselves as they choose and we should use that name as much as we can. Other examples of this include the Tsuu T'ina, who were previously referred to as the Sarcee, or the Inuit, who were previously referred to as Eskimos. If this were a geographic article for say Nootka Sound then I would be in agreement that a change is not required, following the Germany/Deutchland explanation. But it is disrespectful to the Nuu-Chah-Nulth for us to choose a different name be the most prominent reference to them on Wikipedia. Additionally on most if not all of the Government of British Columbia websites the term Nuu-Chah-Nulth is used. We have a choice to either strengthen a disrespectful, inaccurate label, or we can choose to help promote a people's chosen identity. Kurieeto 19:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Some preferred-spelling native-perfect versions of names are in current political/organizational use, e.g. Tla-oh-quiat - which is the same word as Clayoquot, just transliterated differently. So there Tla-oh-quiat (or whatever sp. the band uses for itself) and there's the IPA-ish linguist's version. Same with the differences in sp. I've seen in St'at'imcets language-books vs in academic works citing St'at'imcets words, but using a different orthographical system. All gets pretty confusing. Same with Sneneymux (sp?) vs Nanaimo and Laich-kwil-tach vs Yuculta/Euclataws.

BTW I think if someone in BC, at least someone knowledgeable about First Nations, were to have said "so you a Nootka?" it would be taken for granted that whomever said it already the person was from Nootka Sound or Gold River or elsewhere on Nootka Sound. i.e. that the person was "A Nootka from Nootka Sound", one of the Nootkas, the line and people of Maquinna (I've met one or two). People less read-up on native affairs still use Nootka to refer to the Nuu-chah-nulth; and that name kinda also means the Nitinat, too, in an old-fashioned historical way (19th C books); BC politicians/media/educators will consistently use Nuu-chah-nulth over Nootka (except for Nootka Sound) although specific First Nation/band/reserve/village names are often used instead, or at least in addition to the collective grouping.

It's also worth mentioning that prior to the Indian Act and the cultural survival imperative after the Conversion and the Potlach Laws and all that, the Nuu-chah-nulth as a group were not organized as one entity; but wound up that way from bureaucratic structures built upon the language divisions, rather than on historical political relationships (or animosities vs alliances); I'm in no position to want to get in a bad-history squabble ("it's not your place to say that!") nor to write up the details, but in the early pre-colony days and for a few decades after the chiefs of what is now the Nuu-chah-nulth were all rivals, if not entirely enemies (which they were often enough, as so famously with Wickanninish and Maquinna).Skookum1 10:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I too wish to avoid a 'bad history squabble', so suffice to say that a critical portion of the above declaration is historically incorrect. In the early pre-colony days SOME of these nations were rivals and enemies: but others were closely allied. All groups are deeply interrelated by ties of marriage, kinship, and trade. Names from one group appear in another; the Makah potentially trace their origin to the Northern part of Vancouver Island, and maintain relations along the west coast. The name "nuu chah nulth" was chosen by the people themselves, to reflect the depth of their historic relationships. Rivalry is no indication of profound division: numerous stories describe intense rivalries between chiefs of the same village....Woodschmoe, Dec. 2005

Page moved
I've moved this page from Nootka to Nuu-chah-nulth. violet/riga (t) 01:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History? Population?
This page really needs to be expanded as it pretty much only talks aboutthe language right now. I'd like to know more about the history of the Nootka, and their current population and it's evolution. as well as their culture.

Heya, I'm planning on expanding this whole article (about 800 words added) including greater detail into some areas like food and society. I might end up changing the formatting of the page to ensure that it flows as a full article. (MadelaineNabbe (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Maquinna, Mowachaht, etc
I took a stab at frameworks on some Nuu-chah-nulth history, partly as spinoffs of geographic or other historical or First Nations articles; just writing from the seat of my pants so anyone who knows better/more please rewrite/augment. Haven't dared write much because I haven't studied them in detail, only know what I've picked up from newspapers and various histories over the years..Maquinna and Mowachaht I think I've done already; have to flesh out Maquinna after rereading some accounts, and do some of the other historic chiefs, like Wickanninish. See also Nootka Sound. Skookum1 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the page, based upon established sources: scholarly, archival, and from interviews with members of various Nuu-chah-nulth nations. I would caution having 'done' Maquinna, etc. as one must answer 'which one?' there have been numerous Maquinnas through history, and the name is still in use today. I presume you refer to the Maquinna of Cook's time, but I think it is worth noting this, and would caution that much of the historic information regarding these chiefs has been demonstrated to be inaccurate....Woodschmoe, Dec. 2005

Look, I "winged it" when I created/expanded the Maquinna article from what I knew from the books I've read, which range from anthro-ethno works and First Nations-flavoured accounts to Pethick's excerpts from the early mariner's journals; anybody can change anything in Wiki, and you're welcome too; I just felt there wasn't enough here. I'm aware of the chiefly-lineage thing; same deal with Kiyapilano (Capilano) and Kahtsahlano (Kitsilano) in the Vancouver area; there are still chiefs with those names/ titles; the article should explain that and maybe list the succession of Maquinnas. But there's a "the" chief Maquinna in the early history of Contact here, which most people searching for the name are going to look for/expect to find. As for "demonstrated to be inaccurate" I gather you mean that the white accounts of him are to be considered discredited by the First Nations oral history; "demonstrated" is not quite the proper verb there, unless you expect the First Nations account to be more reliable than anyone else's, simpy because it's First Nations. That's not how the world works; or we'd accept the Turkish version of Albanian and Greek history, or the Japanese version of the history of the Manchukuo. Good history relies on telling all sides of the story; blanket denials based on the skin colour or cultural origin of the person making the account are not valid, nor should they be expected to be simply because a name/person "belongs" to a given people. Denial of someone else's account to the point of excluding it altogether is, to me, dishonest (by which I mean things like reports of cannibalism by the early mariners - who had seen such practices elsewhere and could not have been "mistaken because they were dumb white men", as some nativists like to claim - cannot be excluded; they can be discounted, but not openly discredited simply because the writer of the journal in question was white; that's racist).Skookum1 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly a well rehearsed lecture, but to follow one of your points (I will have to track down the precise citation later, as it is in my archives)an early european witness to Maquinna noted him sucking blood from a cut on his arm: it was cited in the 'historic' account of the witness as evidence of cannibalism. Simply a matter of perspective, or an inaccuracy? Nothing 'nativist' about pointing out that many of the early visitors to Yuquot stayed a short while, and brought with them a whole lot of preconceptions about what they were seeing: nothing new about pointing out that outside observers, with little or no knowledge of the local language, and relationships of purely commercial, and later, institutional interest with local groups produce very partial, often inaccurate accounts. That said, I find Jewitt's account informative, even when it offers a version of events that differ from the local history: on the flip side, i recall an illustration of a northern nuu-chah-nulth village from one of the spanish expeditions, in which the house fronts are depicted with polka dots. Clearly, the illustrator was at a distance, or couldn't render the images, so he fudged it. And Meares ("liar Meares" according to the maquinna we're discussing) provided accounts that were intentionally fantastical, to shore up his tenuous claims. A couple of these were "white men", though the spaniard was more likely beige...so what? I in fact agree with much of your commentary, though it drifts into characteristic (in light of your other posts, on this and other forums) polemic at the end. I'd suggest you've attached a lot of what are clearly personal pet peeves regarding history to my comments unfairly. I don't see it said anywhere in my comments that white accounts are to be entirely disregarded; seems much of your post, in reference to my comments, is itself bad history. From one dumb white man to another, regards. Woodschmoe, July 2006.

Well, hell, trying to write First Nations/Native American articles is like walking on eggshells; you try and do good and inevitably someone sees ill in whatever you do; and to me it strikes me that you're being patronizing with this comment about my reply to you being "well-rehearsed"; it was written off-the-cuff in about four minutes (I type 110+wpm) and generally don't "rehearse"; same as your jibe about my "pet peeves" and such = whichever talk forums, be it on Oregon or the nauseous p.c.rewrite of Canadian-Chinese history, or Central Canadian biases concerning BC, or American biases (APOV) on the Alaska boundary and others, it's not "pet peeves", it's concern for truth, especially for overturning shibboleths and dearly-held mythologies which; very much like the Nuu-chah-nulth concern for having their history accounted for correctly. But I'll tell you what; it would help if they sat down and made a point of circulating it; I made my contributions in Maquinna, Mowachaht, and here because there wasn't anything, at least anything much more than a stub; I "winged it" in order to un-redlink other pages' articles and also because the Maquinna in question was ref'd in those articles (which none of the others have reason to be, except maybe the most recent guy concerning Luna the killer whale, if there's an article on that). And when I said I'd "done" Maquinna I didn't mean I'd finished it, only that I'd created it because it was pointedly absent, as also with many other BC First Nations historical figures, vs. the plethora of such articles in the Hew Hess of Hay. Nothing in Wiki is ever "done", that's a given. I was trying to begin the process of filling in the blanks; maybe I should have just let Wikidom ignore Maquinna's existence and not bothered trying to expand the Nuu-chah-nulth or Mowahchaht articles either; if people can't be bothered to take part in the writing of their own history, but then take offense when someone else makes and earnest effort to based on available materials and exposure but it's still not good enough for the people who didn't want to write it themselves, maybe they deserve to be forgotten, how's that? And yeah, your comment about "demonstrated to be inaccurate" set me off about a lot of C*R*A*P heard/seen in soc.culture.native and L-CHINOOK about whitey not knowing what he was talking about and only indigenous accounts being trustworthy/valid; the implication was there that that's where you were coming from, or your sources were, so I reacted, yes reacted, accordingly; and cannibalism being the most polemical I brought it up, partly because of a passage in Pethick's book I came across the other day which I pondered adding to the article; I just got up so will find the passage later and post it here for your consideration; since you're evidently more of an expert on the Nuu-chah-nulth than I ever could be or would want to be. I simply wrote the original base-article because it was needed. If that's reason to patronize me, or dump on my efforts, then enjoy your smugness. You may be a dumb white guy; I'm not.Skookum1 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS That wasn't "rehearsed" either; and written in about 4.5 minutes.Skookum1 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, Skookum1, for a patronizing tone indeed; it was in response to a lecturing one. I cannot speak for the Nuu chah nulth, nor am i an expert, as you mention (though in a fashion which suggests sarcasm: no matter...), but my entries here, and accompanying discussions are simply in the service of a more accurate article. If you laid down the bones, good on you: hopefully someone else adds more. I'm done. Nothing personal intended, apart from an initial reactionary tone; the rest seems fair and topical to me. Congrats on breaking the 5 minute barrier on your last post; they said it couldn't be done. Woodschmoe, July 2006

Chinook Jargon Refs
The etymologies provided for many/ten/hiyu (hyo in Jewittian Nuu-chah-nulth transcription) and siah/far/sky are from Shaw, as repeated ad nauseam by Chinookologists since. Links provided later once I find the correct page refs. IIRC Nuu-chah-nulth/Southern Wakashan is supposed to have contributed about 30 per cent of the native-origin words in CJ; it's fourth over all after Chinookan, French and English, and is followed by Chehalis and some smatterings of Kwakiutl and plateau languages (but no one ever recorded the Hawaiian, Russian, Chinese, Gaelic, Portuguese, Algonkian etc components and regional peculiarities that are mentioned in some accounts - which apparently were many; most CJ lexicons are based on Columbia River Jargon)Skookum1 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of names should be on languages page
Not sure who's monitoring this page; the lengthy section on the meanings of placenames should be transferred to Nuu-chah-nulth language, where it belongs. I just created Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council so any additions relating to governmental organization, chiefs and councillors, resource and development issues as definecd by the First Nation(s) etc should go there.Skookum1 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What about now?
This is all written rather as if the Nuu-chah-nulth are only in the past. There is at least one quite prominent present-day Nuu-chah-nulth, artist Joe David (hmm, guess I'll start that article). I suspect that there are others. - Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the german version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.114.239 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most articles on indigenous nation in the Northwest Coast negate any mention of the present day Indigenous. I agree that it does need work on. Other notable people to include would be Art Thompson, Shawn Atleo (Current BC AFN Reigional Chief), and information about the current treaty process, although that is going to be "news" in the next few weeks with the Maa-nulth treaty group going to vote soon. OldManRivers 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuu-chah-nulth wiki "to do" list

 * Wickaninnish
 * Callicum
 * Nuu-chah-nulth art
 * Nuu-chah-nulth music
 * Nuu-chah-nulth warfare
 * "fill in" redlinks on
 * articles needing indigenous input/coauthorship
 * Hot Springs Cove
 * Walbran Valley
 * Pacific Rim National Park
 * John Jewitt
 * Barkley Sound
 * Clayoquot Sound
 * Quatsino Sound
 * Kyuquot Sound
 * Nootka Sound etc
 * decide on which spelling system rfor Nuu-chah-nulth language should be standard.

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 09:14, 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: Move. As with the others, we appear to have solid consensus that the people are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be at the base name. Though WP:NCL recommends the former arrangement we seem to have an emerging consensus that the PRIMARYTOPIC claim takes precedence. As with the others the issue will benefit from a wider discussion as mentioned.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuu-chah-nulth people → Nuu-chah-nulth – target was moved to "Nuu-chah-nulth (disambiguation)" by Uysvdi on Dec 29 2011, then redirected by same to current article title on the same day citing PRIMARYTOPIC, even though that should mean Nuu-chah-nulth should be the title and not other articles whose titles devolved from the name of this group of peoples or their organizations. Target page was moved to current title on June 8, 2011 by JorisV with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have 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) 09:13, 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. The smugness in your suggestion for me to "try to change the guideline" in in a space dominated by the same small cabal of users, two - no three - have engaged in insults against me is beyond smug to the point of ridiculousness; an RfC may be required to change that guideline, as it's clear I'm shut out of any process involving  that group of editors, who have been relentlessly contrarian and hostile to anything upsetting the applecart they carefully concocted to please themselves..and no one else.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 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) 12:26, 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) 12:47, 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) 14:31, 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 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Article titles also applies given that Nuu-chah-nulth is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:22, 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) 17:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion and a subsequent unanimous vote in favor of explicit disambiguation of people–language pairs. "Nuu-chah-nulth" 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". "Nuu-chah-nulth" was made a dab page in response to this guideline, only to be made a redirect later without discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a template or just a copy-paste you're using to repeat your post across all these RMs? Hell I guess I'll copy paste to, since I'm replying to the same as-if-bot-generated comment. Here are view stats that debunk the premise that "people-language pairs" are a legitimate primarytopic equation, which is demonstrably bunk:
 * "Nuu-chah-nulth people" was viewed 2,587 times this month (March)
 * "Nuu-chah-nulth language" was viewed 867 times
 * Well, that's better than the 8:1 and 5:1 we've seen elsewhere anyway. [more copy paste from another parallel case:] your premise that "people-language pairs" exist as equally primary topics is rubbish, and demonstrable over and over again; one of the many flawed in NCL.  Next time your crew revises that guideline, you should learn some math first and actually look at stats and, oh, sources too....Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 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.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuu-chah-nulth. 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/20050209143218/http://www.magma.ca/%7Estonham/nootka/ntk_txt.html to http://www.magma.ca/%7Estonham/nootka/ntk_txt.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Genetic research issues
I was kind of surprised to not see anything about this on the page. In short, in the 1980s, Health Canada provided funding to Dr. Richard Hugh Ward of UBC to conduct a genetic survey on the Nuu-chah-nulth to investigate a high rate of rheumatoid disease; the ~900 participants gave consent to medical research only. Shortly after collecting blood samples, Ward moved to Utah (and eventually Oxford), taking the samples with him and using them extensively for anthropological studies, without getting renewed consent, or ever publishing anything medically relevant. Here's an article on the whole debacle from the tribal council's newspaper.

I'm not sure where/if this should go on the page, but it seems potentially relevant? --Deddish (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)