Talk:Tahltan

Splitting the article
This article should be split into Tahltan (the ethnic group) and Tahltan language. But the edit history of the good work done by User:Ish ishwar should be kept in the Tahltan language article. However, to do that, the Tahltan language (currently just a redirect) needs to be first deleted by an admin, then the current article moved to it, and the ethnicity stub portion copied to Tahltan. Does anyone disagree? Luigizanasi 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No. heqs 13:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No; d'accord, that is. And to also note that there should be separate pages for any Tahltan/Kaska national/political organizations.Skookum1 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Note that Ross River Dena Council and Liard River First Nation in the Yukon have been created. For the Kaska, we need Kaska Tribal Council, Kaska Dena Council (B.C.), Dease River First Nation, Lower Post First Nation, and Kwadacha First Nation. I don't know off hand what the Tahltan organisations are. Luigizanasi 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahltan First Nation for sure but there are others, I'll find them out; there's no "Tahltan Tribal Council" that I'm aware of; I think the Tahltan bands belong to a coalition council wit the Dunneza and some of the Sekani. Tahltan language should definitely be split off, maybe I'll get to that tonight. I think the Klappan Valley coal-bed methane project section should be split off to a separate article, maybe just Klappan River (although there's this pesky Category:Valleys of British Columbia category, but to me there's no point in Klappan River and Klappan Valley, ditto with any other example except for certain ones where "so-and-so valley" is a common usage). This leaves "not much" for the ethnotgraphic content of this article, which by its title should be the ethno/culture/people article; we'll see how it looks after teh detailed sections that belong in other articles are split off. Suggestions fror what to do with the coal-bed methane section welcome.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

furthur split
The non-ethnographic material on the coal-bed methane proposal more properly belongs on the related aboriginal government page(s), or on Klappan Valley coal-bed methane proposal or Klappan River coal-bed methane proposal or some such title. It does not belong here, except by brief mention referring to the other article, once it is written.Skookum1 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the protests are supported by the gov't so I'm not sure it belongs there. A new page would work, if you think it's necessary. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However, once you take out the language and the coal bed proposal, that leaves you with two sentences. Who says the Tahltan article has to be purely ethnographic? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NorthAmNative project parameters and also cultural/political sensitivity; band governments are dcfeartures of the Indian Act in many FN eyes; articles for govenrmetns should be separate for articles for history and culture; there's crossover; this happens toh ave a mirrored coalbevd section on Iskut, British Columbia btw....I stopped by to comment that e government articles are needed; Iskut First Nation, Lower Post First Nation, whatever the Telegraph Creek one is rightly called (?Tahltan First Nation??) and Dease Lake First Nation; or is one of those Kaska; the Tahltan Central Council I found out about on the other page, it's the tribal council; I thnk there's a joint Kaska-Tahltan council also, I'll check back on that  The ethnography pages can be quite large, once history and anthro and modern culture are added on; the band/government articles are institutional and personnel articles, infrastructure, programs etc....which reserves they govern/are assigned etc.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 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) 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tahltan people → Tahltan – target is redirect to current title, created by Kwami on Jun 28, 2011] with no regard for obvious PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB or provably common stand-alone usage. Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 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) 12:40, 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 02:40, 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 Tahltan is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:26, 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) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This one is complicated by an RM at Tahltan, British Columbia for now; I will withdraw that one as the people, in this case unlike many others of this kind, are the PRIMARYTOPIC; Tahtlan as a location is mostly abandoned or only occupied seasonally. Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I thought I had filed an RM there, but now realize I must have been aware of this title conflict so never launched one; I still do a view stats to be sure, the Tahltan people are named after this location, which was a trading entrepot with the Tlingit, but their name as a people is far better known as I'm sure stats will prove; this is one of the few exceptions to "the other way around" where town-names are far and away the primarytopic.Skookum1 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 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 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tahltan. 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/20071011185251/http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/exhibits/journeys/english/mountain_1_4a.html to http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/exhibits/journeys/english/mountain_1_4a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610154204/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/feature_edziza_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/feature_edziza_e.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226093617/http://alaskacanadarail.com/ to http://www.alaskacanadarail.com/

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) 07:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

'James Teit' Picutre
Hello, I have not edited a wiki page before but I noticed the picture, or the caption more specifically on this article is misleading. That picture displayed was likely taken by James Teit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Teit ) it is not of James Teit himself. Just thought I would bring this up so someone could confirm this and/or edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandmaan100 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo on site
Is not James Teit 205.234.54.38 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)