Talk:Shíshálh

Tyronejoemayes (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)where it says "(in their language spelled Shishá7lh) in the Sechelt Dictionary printed in 2011, Shishá7lh is actually spelled shishalh without the 7. Also one of the numerous changes after European settlement not mentioned is the church.  "

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: moved DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sechelt people → Shishalh – Shishalh was the original title of this article; the title was changed by Kwamikagami in May 2001 along with many other similar undiscussed yet controversial changes, his rationale reads "moved Shishalh to Sechelt people: English, per lang)". But Shishalh is an accepted English usage for this ethnographic group, and a google comparison for "sechelt people" yields only 2,790 results and that includes wikipedia links; but a google for "Shishalh" yields 6,500 results - over twice as many. The premise that one name is "more English" is a fallacy, as was also demonstrated in RMs on titles that were similarly moved for the same reason, but which upon examination of sources and other matters, were reverted back to their native endonyms, which is also in line with conventions that were long-established for category and main-article titles in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, which is the directory for ethnographic articles (Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia being where the band government articles are. The DBA name of the band government in this case is both the Sechelt Indian Band and the "shishalh first nation" (lower case) as per [www.secheltnation.ca/ their own website]. The PRIMARYTOPIC of "Sechelt" is the town/district municipality, as indicated also by the lack of disambiguation on its article, Sechelt. NB use of older-era linguistic and ethnographic publications as "reliable sources" will favour the "English" version of the name, but more recent sources and emerging realities in Canadian English usage demonstrate that Shishalh, like other endonyms, IS current in modern English, so the premise of the move "English, per lang" was false. Like so many other bandit-moves done in bulk at the same time, this was undiscussed and should have been immediately reverted, but now that it's been in place for a while an RM is necessary....always ironic to me that moves done by fiat while "no one is looking" do not have to provide sources or full rationales, just invoke a guideline without proving it's valid, then after sitting for a while until discovery, trying to revert it back takes "consensus"....because of the virulence of last year's RMs and the current wrangle over Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish I'd stayed away from this and other "FOO people" impositions/reversions, but in looking at the google today I couldn't help but remark about the drastic difference in results; this should clearly be moved back to where it was created at. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - restore prior to move. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 17 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)
 * 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.

Rename Sechelt Indian Band?
Also posted on Talk:Sechelt Indian Band - perhaps keep any discussion in one place, there

Should this article now be at shíshálh Nation, as in the text? That term is currently a redirect to shíshálh. I am not knowledgeable in this field, just saw this page again and wondered (I was alerted to a link from Sechelt to the tems swiya Museum page I'd created a while back, and noticed a lot of piped links on that page, so wondered.)

Or should the two pages be merged, or at least more clearly linked to each other?

I won't be joining in the discussion, as a total outsider to a sensitive area.

Pam D  07:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)