Talk:Sekani

Shuswap, Kootenai, and Nicola
I've replaced the bit about contiguity with the Shuswap and Kootenai etc. I don't know where this idea comes from. Sekani territory is bordered on the south by Dakelh, which separates it from Shuswap. Since the Sekani and the Carrier were generally on friendly terms, there appears to have been some Sekani contact with the Shuswap, but it was across Carrier territory. The Sekani have nothing to do with the Nicola other than being distant relatives.Bill 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It comes from James Teit, Bill, in his History of the Okanagan People which is a certain section of the Jessup materials; I have a scan of it but I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it,being an academic and all. It was, accordng to Teit's Okanagan and Nicola and Secwepemc sources, whomever, Nicola's grandfather or great-grandfather who drove them from the North Thompson and, presumably, the Upper Fraser....how there came to be a band of Secwepemc in the Columbia Valley may have something to do with it, I cant' remember.  If you can't fnd a copy of Teit n the YDLI library :-| I'll dig out my TIFscans and post 'em somehow for you; pretty much Nicola (chief) is a pastiche of Teit; there was a lot more on his "dynasty" (hs father was, I think, the third Pelkamulox, it was the first who warred with the Sekani, by my estimate sounds like the late 1600s...given that Ncola was n his 20s when he first worked at the fur post in the north Okanagan in...1811?  According to Secwepemc/Okanagan tradition anyway, if not Sekani memory....I suggest you put it back in, if only as an account told by the Secwepemc et al; maybe it wasn't the Sekani, but another people Teit msconstrued in the accounts that were told him by his native informants?  Sorry I don't have it handy.... Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops no, the first Pelkamulox was born c.1675, the third died c. 1810 est; see Nicola (chief) and one day I'd like to write a more detailed Nicola's War. BTW very much missing from Category:First Nations leaders is Kwah, if you or one of your students would care to indulge by writing it; also Chinlac, which strikes me in the "notable" category and worthy of a Wiki article; anyone in your crew able to take on Dimlahamid/Temlahan??Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A bio of Teit would fill a big void, too....Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sekani language
That's a redirect now, it shouldn't be. I'm gonna be splitting this off, though not tonight; it would help if there was an existing intro to transplant to a new article; it's very late but I'll try to remember to dummy up an intro tomorrow and transfer the lnstuicis stuff over there; this should be an ethno/cultural/social article.Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For an example of t his kind of split, if you'd care to undertake the others needed, see the edit hstory of Tahltan and my creation tonight of Tahltan language. Similar splits are underway throughout the NorthAmNative project; people, language and government articles should all be separate.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (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 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sekani people → Sekani – target is redirect to current title; moved by Kwami on June 28, 2011 with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 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) 12:41, 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 02:39, 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 Sekani 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) 17:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)