Talk:Sinixt

Who were the Sinixt?
This article is poorly written--what the heck are "Sinixt"? Are they Indians, rabbits, tumbleweeds, or what? All the article states is that they were "inhabitants" who were declared "extinct". Very confusingly written. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sinixt or "Lakes" were a Salishan-speaking people allied with the Ktunaxa who were declared extinct in Canada after the smallpox and otherwise depopulated, but a few survivors remain in the United States. Their territory was the Kootenay and Arrow Lakes of BC (Nelson-Castlegar-Nakusp area).Skookum1 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sinixt were not, to my knowledge "Allied with the Ktunaxa". The Ktunaxa arrived in the Arrow Lakes region of BC from the plains, and were permitted to stay by the Sinixt, who already occupied the land



Extinct? Not!
According to this film: 'The Sinix't, Bringing Home the Bones' the Sinix't were not, nor never were 'extinct' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nm0_EX97rU

 More info on their website here http://sinixtnation.org/content/sinixt-nation-launch-massive-land-claim (not that the film and the website are related, they're not) Veryscarymary (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions
Thanks for expanding this; I wrote the stub but knew little more about the Sinixt than what's here and there in BC history and historical journalism articles. A few questions, though:
 * - Teit describes a war between, I think, the Okanagan or Nicolas (Sce'emx-Siylx alliance in the Nicola valley) and the Sinixt; I have much of Teit in digi-form here but I remember he comments it resulted in a major depopulation of the Sinixt or, as he calls them, "the Lake".
 * - A separate article or at least a stub on the Sinixt language will be needed, if you or someone you know could write one; see WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America; I'll find the precise item on that page later and revise that link so you can find the relevant discussion about this. There's something of a standard format emerging for First Nation/Native American language articles, also.
 * - hmm had some other questions while I was wikifying the article, but I guess I haven't had enough coffee yet ;-) .... I'll be back.Skookum1 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

hey skookum1 Yah, I saw the article was flagged for improvement so I added a few things. It obvioulsy will need to be cleaned up and citations added, but I am a bit too busy at the moment. Will get to it though.

I am not familiar with your Teit reference at the moment. Part of the confusion was that Boas/Teit classified the Sinixt within the larger "Okanagan", but then subdivided the Okanagan proper to sometimes include a "Lake" division, as opposed to the "Lakes" which is always a reference to the sinixt. My suspicion is that he was referring to the former, although I am definately interested.

I will also add a language stub. I recall reading it was similar to colville, but more 'drawn out'.

Teit (and others) describe the late pre-contact war with the Ktunaxa, in which the Sinixt were eventually able to stop the aggressors by a final large-scale raid on the Southern Ktunaxa.

There is, however, quite a lot of evidence that there was significant regional conflict at some time prior to the smallpox. Many pithouse villages seem to have been abandoned in the 1400s. I suspect that there was major Athabaskan/Salish/Ktunaxa conflict far beyond the basic Nicola/chilcotin enigma. Let's not forget that the Apache/navajo etc. had only just arrived in the Southern plains when the Spanish got there in the 1500s (The Apache were reeking havoc at the time amongst the non-nomadic peoples who were indigenous to the area.). There are differing theories among archeologists about whether it was strictly a plains migration or 'inter-montaine'.

––––

Just changed a couple things. I changed it from 3800 years to "over 4000" years in order to me more accurate with respect to the "Salish Expansion". The evidence suggests the Salish came into the area 4500 years ago or so. Someone asked who they replaced? This is something virtually impossible to answer. After all, when we talk about the Salish expansion, we are including the Flathead, Spokane, Colvile, Okanagan, Shuswap, Thompson, etc. etc. There is an "archeological gap" of a couple hundred years prior to this. The biggest distinction between them and the people they replaced is that the people(s) they replaced were more clearly nomadic. Hence it is quite difficult to say. Both ancestors to the Ktunaxa and Sahaptin are good bets, although the nomadic nature of the times meant that there was probably a lot of changes over time. Regardless, we should not forget that 4500 years is longer than the "Irish" have been in Ireland or the "British" have been in England. Yes, there were Irish and British before, but 4500 is long before the Galic, the Norse, the Norman, the Romans or other populating groups entered those areas and gave them the genetics and languages spoken there today. 4500 years is a long long long long time.

Citation
As you can see, I've been making extensive additions based on Lawney Reyes' memoir, and citing them rather specifically. Could someone possibly improve the citation on the rest of the material? - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinixt language needed
Even if only as a stub, as with Okanagan language, plus any refs that might google up for it; there's passages from Teit about them, and I've seen recent mainstream journalistic-history articles on them here in BC, though nothing on their language directly. That article would then get the Salishan languages category instead of this one; there are other hierarchies to be had here too, like the indigenous languages of the Plateau category and some others; whatever's on Syilx and Secwepemc, I guess. Anyway, separate language articles also infer that hopefully there's material on the Sinixt language (Sinixt'stn?) somewhere out there to form the stub with; other than that vague refs that it's closely related to Colville and Syilx'tsn (Okaganan) and such is fine; just to establish the stub. The modern Colville language/dialect, which I understand to be a creole of many Salishan languages from the area (and others?), also deserves its own article; again even if only a stub. But I wouldn't know what to call it; unless it has a self-description/name, e.g. Syilx'tsn vs Okanagan language; as the indigenous name is preferable.Skookum1 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Colville re Okanagan Nation Alliance
Just curious, if there's someone from Colville or the ONA who could explain, and maybe amend the article appropriately - because the Sinixt are part of the Colville, and Colville is part of the ONA, does the ONA represent the Sinixt's interests in BC/Canada? Because I know there's some talking going on, even though no movement (I think) to treaty process; but I do know Sinixt rights/claims have been advanced up here, at last in print/web somewhere if not in process. I know there's something to do with archaeological digs with Sinixt involvement, and with Sinixt political implications, and I think some court proceedings as well as local orgs in support of them (nice thing about the West Kootenay as to the broad-mindedness of the neighbours...). I think they may also be somehow connected to Fort Shepherd Provincial Pari (if that links, I'm not sure), or Fort Shepherd anyway, which was established to serve them as customers when the border cut Colville, then the biggest fur trade centre, in the area, off from British territory; it's been restored and I think there's Sinixt involvement somehow, or permissions or something; something in the news up here, within the last five years anyway; don't know where to dig but it's out there....Skookum1 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, is it just the Okanagan families among the Colville who are allied/in the same tribal council with the Canadian Okanagan, or all the Colville?

ONA do not represent the Sinixt, at least not with the full permission of Autonomous Sinixt Elders. In the U.S., the Sinixt were forcefully amalgamated into the Colville Confederated Tribes. In Canada, they were declared legally extinct for the purposes of the Indian Act in 1956. As such, many of the groups around them attempt to use their lack of status (and the fact that many Sinixt chose membership in neighbouring territories so they could stay in Canada) as a means to co-opt/claim their territory for resources, speak on their behalf or both. The Sinixt were there for the founding of ONA, but Eva Orr, the Sinixt Elder present to represent the Sinixt at that time refused membership, because ONA tried lumping the Sinixt in with the Okanagan Indian Band against their will. Before colonization, the Sinixt were an autonomous group for thousands of years. ONA and Colville Confederated Tribes currently have a Memorandum of Understanding and jointly make decisions in Sinixt Territory in Canada "on behalf" of the Sinixt, even though members (namely Marilyn James) of the elder structure laid out by Eva Orr before she died have repeatedly told both groups they do not speak for the Autonomous Sinixt north of the Canada/U.S. border. As for archy digs, yes there are at least two I am aware of in the Slocan Valley, relating mainly to pithouses that are somewhere around 2,500 years old. They can be identified as Sinixt because the Sinixt bury their dead in a manner quite different from their neighbours. There would be many more digs, but approximately 90% of Sinixt archaeological sites were flooded when the Columbia River Treaty was signed and the dams started going up-Shane 473-cultural anthropologist specializing in Sinixt Culture and Dialect (haven't used my account proper in a while and am having trouble getting back in).

re "major role" in fur trade and border dispute; removal
The relocation of Colville had little to do with a specific tribe; if anything it was the relocation of HBC operations to Fort Shepherd much later on that might have, but not Colville; all tribes in the area of Kettle Falls were teh reason why, partly, but mostly it had to do with ease of shipping. As for the lcaim that thet Sinixt played "a major but unheralded role in the fur trade", not sure how this can even be said, as if other native peoples didn't have at least an equivalent role, and all are "heralded" in the annals of the fur trade. And as for having a role in the border dispute, I'll repeat my edit comment - "puh-LEEXE!". In what fashion could these be any kind of reality? They were consulted? They advised London or Washington? Even the HBC in the Northwest didn't have a major role, it was all played out in the capitals. Totally uncitable and confabulous, I removed it. If you've got a reason/cite why it was the case, put it back in. This may be Sinixt-elder lore, but it bears no resemblance to reality as known by anyone else......and for those who hate my guts here, and may have induced or know who induced the emailed threat against me, I've never been given so much reason to stand up to bullying and will watch this article for further confabulations and overblown "facts". I do the same on non-aboriginal articles, i.e. critical editing, and thinking I've singled hte Sinixt out for "Indian-hater" persecution is just more bunk of the same kind that shows up in Sinixt "histories" published of late; I'm not saying editors here have been party to this; but editors here should be aware of the lack of substance of materials from items like the Tyee article and its kidn, and also be aware that threatening someone into silence is a surefire way to get them to raise their voice even louder. I've done huge amounts of work making sure indigenous sensitivities are reflected across BC articles and beyond; to be accused of being an "Indian-hater" because I won't buy into someone's paranoid lies.....well, it's just another paranoid lie, isn't it?Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I will endeavour to get the cite showing that Fort Colville was created in part to be closer to the Lakes and their territory. I agree that it should remain off the page until it's cited. I recall a specific reference (must`ve been from Simpson or even higher up) that one reason Spokane House was being replaced was to be more central to the productive and "vast" lands of the Lakes. There had even been a satellite "Fort of the Lakes" on Arrow Lake for a while. As for their role in the fur trade, the vast majority of Fort Colville records are unfortunately missing from the HBC archives and lost. The existing records that specify returns by nation show that the Lakes had the highest overall returns. The "major role" includes this fact, especially considering that this made the Lakes the top producing trappers at the most important interior fort in the Columbia District. This era (pre-1830) also coincided with the real on-the-ground "not so cold war" over the whole Columbia, when American settlers had not actually arrived and any American claim to the Territory was rather weaker than the British (not to mention the locals). The earliest records (including US sources) confirm that notwithstanding the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, Spokane/Colville/Sinixt/Flathead/PendOreilles/coeur d'Alene/and Nez Perce all were involved in acting, even violently, to stymie the earliest American overland Mountain Men and independent traders encroaching from the South and East. This is quite apart from any "London and Washington" negotiations, and in my mind can be reasonably characterised as a "major but unheralded role". Put it this way, not one British soldier ever stepped foot in this region during the entire dispute. In my mind, it would be folly to say that the dispute over the Columbia only occurred in Washington and London. I agree, however, that such statement are appropriately left off the page until they're cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillips arm (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Events in the Colville-focussed region were entirely irrelevant to the proceedings of the border dispute. Entirely irrelevant.  "Keeping American settlers out" back in the 1810s doesnt' mean much when the fever to migrate to Oregon hadn't even spread in the US yet, and it's not as if the Sinixt led the charge against thte newcomers.  And on the one hand you say Colville's records were dsstroyed, but in the next claim that whatever remains constitues sufficient proof that the Sinixt were teh dominant trading force at Colville; out of how many tribes.  And the post at the head of the Lakes, if you've got a name for it, just hasn't been written yet - I've always seen it as "Head of the Lakes (Post)"; see Talk:North West Company and other related pages; let's put it this way - I'm unimpressed with the modern Sinixt view that the history of hte region revolves around them in specific; that's ethno-centrism of the worst kind given the evident diversity of the political and ethnic map in the region.  "A major role in the boundary dispute" as a phrase means that they were part of the dispute, or a major factor in its resolution; they were not, and there's no way you can "prove" it.  The rationale you've provided is only synthesis, and rather half-baked synthesis at that.  If only 1/10 of the energy being poured into this article were put towards the articles of the other peoples in this region, but apparently they don't have the same reasons to advance their political-cultural agenda as the Sinixt do, or are trying to do; this is now one of the most over-written ethno articles in Wikipedia (compare Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Kwakwaka'wakw, Skwxwu7mesh) (vs. barely-written ones like various Interior-tribe contents of Category:Native American tribes in Washington.  And I can't recall the number of edits/articles where the Sinixt are portrayed as the sole occupier of fishing sites or regions also used by other peoples....even Kettle Falls somewhere was made to sound like it was a Sinixt site only, as if the Sanpoil and Okanagan and Colville didn't exist, or were subordinates.  What this article doesn't have is balance; instead its array of "facts" all are written towards an agenda, and often try and combine bits of information to impute/allege things that can only be synthesis, when not outright POV.  Your claim - your theory - that they were "major players in the fur trade" and "had a major role in the boundary dispute" constitute synthesis; unless you can find those phrasings in Bancroft, Begg, Thompson, Howay/Scholefield and other actual source-historians, your interpretation of facts is just that - an interpretation (and an interpretation unsupported by historiography, past or current), and therefore it's synthesis/original research.  But from waht I see of Sinixt historical writing, such as teh nonsense spewed in the Tyee article and associated form, very little of it is supported by historgioraphy, ethnography or anything else other than the word of elders (who get things wrong, like loudly claiming that the fur companies had a policy encouraging castration of the Sinixt).Skookum1 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do remember something about the returns from the Lakes-area posts giving good returns in a certain period, but I don't remember the texts saying that the furs brought in where from the Lakes people; even if they did, the time-frame was short; the wording could read "were for a while the main suppliers of furs to Fort Colville", but conflating that to "a major role in the fur trade" constitutes not so much synthesis as expostulation.Skookum1 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * re this:
 * ''Put it this way, not one British soldier ever stepped foot in this region during the entire dispute.
 * Nor any American soldier, except maybe retired ones in the vanguard of the Oregon migration from 1843 onwards; I think you're wrong about "not one British soldier", though - I'll have to check but Mervin Vavasour (sp?) was sent on a reconnaissance mission to the Columbia District from the Selkirk Colony, and I think he was military as was his companion; also some of the Selkirk colonists who came to the Columbia District were of military backgrounds, albeit not active.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lietenants Warre and Vavasour, see this pp. 479-480 and 498; "British Army officers"......Skookum1 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Vavasour and Warre are also mention here on p.167, and described as Royal Engineers; in the disputed regoin in the same year (1845) was a Captain Gordon, as you'll read higher up the page concerning Fort Victoria.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was Simpson who ordered, in 1825, the construction of Fort Colville to replace Spokane House as the regional district headquarters. At least part of the reason was because Spokane House was poorly located in terms of trade traffic patterns. Company officials had been trying to relocate Spokane House since the pre-1821 North West Company days. Donald MacKenzie got Fort Nez Perces built in 1818 and tried to have it take over the operations of Spokane House. Apparently traders and trappers so enjoyed Spokane House itself they raised an outcry whenever it was proposed to be moved. It took Simpson to finally make it happen. So one reason for the move to Fort Colville was because Spokane House was simply a strategically poor location for a district headquarters. A location on the Columbia River was much more sensible in terms of trade routes and traffic. Another reason was that Simpson thought farms and ranches around Fort Colville would be very productive. He was right: After a few years Fort Colville was supplying foodstuffs over a huge area, from the Snake River country to Kamloops and New Caledonia, and even provided seed-wheat to Fort Edmonton. Certainly there could be other reasons, like being closer to major fur producing areas.

According to D.W. Meinig, beaver returns for the Fort Colville district were regularly among the largest of the whole Columbia District, excepting New Caledonia and the sometimes the Snake River expeditions. Meinig writes that most of the furs from Fort Colville came from the Flathead and Kootenay countries. But by "Kootenay" he seems to mean the country around Kootenay Post, on the Kootenay River near present-day Libby, Montana. I'm not very knowledge on the indigenous geography on this region, but wouldn't this post be in Kootenai (Ktunaxa) territory rather than Sinixt? But then, Meinig could be wrong, or I could be misunderstanding. I thought I'd post these observations though. Forgive me if I've misunderstood things -- I'm not clear on quite where the "Lakes country" is exactly. Pfly (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that context, it's not the same as saying, say, Boundary Country; the context is "the country of the Lakes [Indians]"; also commonly seen as Lake Indians, or "the Lake" in the same way as saying "the Shuswap" or "the Okanagan" (and meaning the people, not the region). The lakes in question are the Arrow Lakes and Slocan Lake and, ostensibly, Kootenay Lake although the southern end would seem to have been decidedly Ktunaxa in the historic era ("historic" here meaning post-Contact, i.e. when written events begin).  What's Meinig say about Fort Shepherd, by the way; and does he list the peoples who frequented Colville.  About the fur returns; not hard to beat posts in areas where the "fur desert" had been enacted - e.g. Hall and south of the Columbia - and not hard at all to beat the deserts of Fts Okanagan and Shuswap/Kamloops; the Kootenays are way more lush, and it applies to wildlife as it does to plant life.  You cant' skin lizards.  Or, well, you can, but lizard top hats weren't in fashion....it would seem from the cites you've come up with that the article should be adjusted, no?.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little reluctant to write much on this talk page because I know so little about the Sinixt. But this thread and the questions have gotten me to learn a little more about the fur trade posts of the Columbia District, which is something I have been trying to figure out. So at the risk of betraying my ignorance of the geography and indigeneous peoples, here's a few replies. Meinig doesn't get into great detail, especially for places outside his main geographic focus (the "Great Columbian Plain"). But his maps and text had given me the notion that Fort Colville's mainly tapped the fur regions around Flathead Post (Saleesh House) and Fort Kootenay (near Libby, Montana), in Flathead and Ktunaxa territory respectively. His maps show no posts on or near the Columbia north of Fort Colville, giving the impression that it wasn't a major fur producing area. But I realize now furs from the Arrow Lakes region could simply be taken to Fort Colville directly. He doesn't get into the details though, and does not mention Fort Shepherd. The closest I can find is a semi-vague statement: "Although Colville itself was not too productive in furs, the Flathead and Kootenay countries continued to yield well, often accounting for half or more of the total interior Columbia returns, including the Snake country." Then he devotes several pages to the importance of Fort Colville's argicultural produce. In Richard Mackie's book there is info about how in the 1830s American traders and trappers began encroaching Flathead country via the Missouri River, and the HBC responded by sending out parties from Fort Colville to destroy the beaver of the region, creating a fur desert. Perhaps by that point the Kootenay Lake and Arrow Lakes region was among the last relatively rich fur districts south of New Caledonia.


 * On Fort Shepherd, there is some mention of it at this page, a timeline. Specifically: "1857: Hudson’s Bay Coy. begin to build Fort Pend d’Oreille (later, Shepherd) on the Columbia River near the Boundary, opposite the mouth of the Pend d’Oreille." I know nothing more about this.


 * On the general topic, I've been slowly adding to the list of posts and such at User:Pfly/Sandbox. As for it would seem from the cites you've come up with that the article should be adjusted, no? I have to abstain there. My excuses are that I know so little about the Sinixt and the whole history and geography of that region, and also because I've always been reluctant to edit pages about indigenous peoples, except those long extinct, or pages with no active editors. But thanks for goading me to flesh out my fur trade post/fort understanding a little! Pfly (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Smallpox/instability section

 * ''There is historic evidence suggesting that the Sinixt were heavily depopulated by one or two smallpox epidemics that preceded the arrival of Scottish and Métis fur-traders of the North West Company. The epidemic of 1781 was likely the biggest single outbreak, with accounts of that epidemic describing a mortality rate up to 80%.  David Thompson and other early traders noticed the pock-marked faces of older Sinixt and heard oral accounts of the epidemic.  There is also evidence that the Sinixt were seriously affected by the major political upheavals that preceded the arrival of the Europeans.

Might be worth adding that the earlier smallpox epidemics are believed to have spread overland from New Spain, via inter-indigenous contact, and did not come overland from the East; and re the last sentence although the next paragraph explores some of that instablity, the drift ot htis sentence has a subtext that this political upheaval is to be blamed on the Indian Wars farther east, resulting in Blackfoot raids and the Ktunaxa push into the Kootenays; the theory is POV in and of itself and while not stated here, it seems implied. There's no proof that the period of instability did not go back a lot farther; the story of Nicola's lineage goes back to at least 1670 and speaks ofwars throughtout the Plateau and adjoining areas. Unless that's to be blamed on butterfly-effects frmo the Indian Wars on the Atlantic Seaboard and the Southeast...again, not written POV-ly here, but implied/hinted and recognizable to those who have heard the other story. Political upheaval doesn't adequately describe slave raids or the Blackfoot presence in the Big Bend and upper Arrow......Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A good book on this is Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82, by Elizabeth Fenn. She gives plenty of good source material documenting the existence and spread of smallpox in the Pacific Northwest and beyond, while noting it is not possible to exactly by what routes it spread. One scenario she finds reasonable is that smallpox was introduced along the coast by the many ships plying the PNW coast at the time. Via the extensive trade networks the disease could have spread up the Columbia River and throughout a vast interior region. There are various other possible sources of the epidemic in the PNW, which she outlines in detail, but she says "the great preponderance of evidence points up the Columbia River toward the Shoshones... who infected Saukamappee's Piegan Blackfoot band in the summer of 1781." From the Blackfeet there is decent documentation that smallpox spread toward Hudson Bay. Whether it spread from the Blackfeet west over the mountains is not so certain, she thinks. She notes that some theories point to a spread from the south through the Great Plains, then over the Rockies from the Blackfeet to the Flatheads and others. But after analyzing in detail, she still finds the Columbia River theory the most plausible, at least for the epidemic of circa 1780. She notes that this goes against the normally accepted theory, but does a good job of showing the plausibility of a spread up the Columbia River and, via unknown routes, widely throughout the northwest. Of course it is possible that the great epidemic of 1775-82, which truly spanned the entire continent, reached the Pacific Northwest by multiple routes. Pfly (talk) 06:29, 5 August 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) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sinixt people → Sinixt – target is redirect to current title; on June 8, 2011 by Kwami with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 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 Sinixt is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title.
 * 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 06:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please fix
Why does the infobox say "Total population: 250 in the US," then the article text goes on to mention that a bunch of Sinixt people also live in British Columbia, Canada? Please fix. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Both of those things can be true at the same time. What needs to be fixed? 2604:3D09:BA7F:AB40:9906:873B:2AFD:4750 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)