Talk:The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples

Changing title and re subject matter
There is no such tribe as "Athabaskan" though there are Athabaskan peoples; changing the title accordingly. This article so far is very broad, referring to the Tanacross and not as yet to the Wetsu'we'ten, Carrier/Dakelh, Tsilhqot'in or Tahltan/Kaska and many others; I haven't scanned it yet to see if it's COPYVIO, it may be, given how extensively it has been written. The main Potlatch article User:OldManRivers and I had long ago discussed re its focus on the coastal potlatch and not on Interior peoples, including the Athabaskans of the north and the Interior Salish and other tribes of the plateau; really it's not discussable on the basis of the large groups, as the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch was different from that even of the other Wakashan peoples, and 'coastal" also is too broad because of the differences between Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian/Gitxsan/Nisga'a, never mind the Salish peoples of the Strait and Sound....and beyond. What the geographic perimeter of the potlatch phenomenon is I don't know (e.g were the Shoshone, Nez Perce and Ktunaxa also potlatching cultures; but I do know it's different from tribe to tribe, people to people, and the broad stroke of "Athabaskan" strikes me as an ethnologists - anthropologists' grouping - that's in a way as inappropriate as say7 "Na-Dene Potlatches" or "Wakashan potlatches". I note the inclusion of Mauss' theory here, one of many anthropologists to have something to say here; the title of that section "theoretical importance" strikes me as odd, perhaps "Anthropological theories" or "analyses" would be better. that being said, I think accounts of potlatch culture as it existed and as it exists are more important than what anthrpological academic culture has to say; and I'd support a split off Anthropological theories of the potlatch to put those where they belong; not as accounts, but as external mumbojumbo.Skookum1 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

name discussion
well, I could just change it by myself, but the grammar of the changed title I was thinking of The potlatch among Athabaskan peoples seems awkward; maybe only because of the "the" at the start of it. The current potlatch article is Kwakwaka'wakw derived, I don't think it even has any Skwxwu7mesh input in it (despite that being the other half of OMR's heritage).....this title bothers me; re my previous comments the way to go might be Potlatch (Kwakwaka'wakw), Potlatch (Athabaskan peoples), Potlatch (Interior Salish peoples) etc... Potlatch (Nuu-chah-nulth peoples) is a given, in that patlac was originally a Nuu-chah-nulth word.Skookum1 (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

lede should mention the other potlatch article more directly
It's already linked there of course; my point is that if the Athabaskan peoples' potlatch system(s) are to have their own article, why it has to be a separate article should be explained, as opposed to the coastal potlatch (there is some continuity to feature of different coastal cultures' potlatches); and that there is not much difference vs the potlatches of the other Interior peoples farther south; recently I saw a wiki article about potlatches in northern Alberta, not sure if they were Cree or Dogrib/Slavey now, I know the Beaver/Dunneza had them, as did of course the more southerly ones of the Interior Salish are pretty much the same, relative to the differences with coastal potlatches.....the Chinook had them but I don't think they were name-feasts or as important to clan structure as farther north on the coast; most literature will tend to focus one group or one linguistic division, as this one does; the danger is in making judgements about such comparisons, which amounts to SYNTH.... but right now this article reads more like an old-era anthro text than an account of practices of living peoples.Skookum1 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)