Talk:Wuikinuxv

quick google
There are other refs than the http://www.wuikinuxv.net one I just provided google including the UBC Museum of Anthrpology and the BC Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation branch of the BC government. For anyone thinking of invoking "COMMONNAME" or "ENGLISH" to change this to Owekeeno people or Rivers Inlet people based on historical usage or continued usage in the ethnolinguistic community, CANENGL applies and the Wuikinuxv version gets over over 8,000 hits while "Owekeeno people" gets under 500. Rivers Inlet people does get around 11,000 hits though some of those are for "Rivers Inlet" + "people" in the general sense.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So, this is the "discussion". If you do a Google Book search, and do not skew the results by appending "people" to one and not the other, "Oowekeeno" is more common, even after manually verifying each hit to exclude false positives.  — kwami (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is: propose and discuss these moves before unilaterally moving. Obviously there is not a consensus supporting this move. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

[post edit conflict] ::See the rules on speedies, KwammyGame, "uncontroversial".......oh, but you don't care about any actual guidelines other than those you can tie other people in knots, right? Wuikinuxv is a new spelling yes, but you bloody well know such native-chosen endonyms are now standard in Canada and increasingly so. These people chose this spelling for THEMSELVES, burying them in cites from older times and other countries by people who do not know them or care about them is ridiculous posturing. If the Govt of BC, the Museum of Anthropology, INAC, the people themselves, the Assembly of First Nations and so on all recognize this name, then all the f*******g google hits in the world don't matter squat. Coming up with your shallow shotgun citation after violating WP:RM rules for the FORTIETH TIME is not a "discussion". It is b.s. and it's you who should have had to RM all the things you speedied, not expect others to have to RM them back so you can be a catty, picky, constantly contrary quarreler and bait people so you can have your way. It's what the Wuikinuxv call themselves that count, and what the governments and people who live around them and deal with them count, not what's on "the internet bookshelf". Your position that their own views and feelings are not to be taken into account is just more arrogant chauvinism about "what's best for the red man" as was the gist of what you had said in one of the RMs; i.e. "white man knows best", except your white man is hiding behind Wikipedia guidelines which favour dominance by older sources and explicitly by people who only view these people as anthropological objects to be studied and classified and, here in Wikipedia, to ahve some obscure and allgedly "consensus" process decide that what they want doesn't matter. Oowekeeno is out of date; even Owikeno Lake is not spelled that way. Why didn't you just be a good little colonialist and roll it right back to the anglicism Rivers Inlet people and be done with it? These people are a living culture with living identity; they are not things to have labels pasted on them by somebody who doesn't care what they want, and under the guise of guidelines that he himself ignores; you know the one, it's called consensus, something so very alien to your behaviour and attitudes it's laughable that you could wear the mantle of Wiki-guidelines while behaving as you have been with all of these. Go on, search BC-only cites, and remember Canadian English applies here, not Kwamikagami English.......revert and then discuss and try and get your change, don't just throw google stats out there as if only your analysis was right; it's not. And revert Dakelh....did you contact Bill Poser and say, hey, you were wrong, I'm right, tehse people are not Dakelh but Carrier.....?? And discounting "primary sources" in favour of shotgun google hits is not, to me, valid even in Wikipedian terms. The Wuikinuxv Nation, the BC and federal aboriginal affairs ministry, the Mt Waddington Regional District, BC Parks, and BC Forests Service are the relevant citations for Canadian English names as used in British Columbia. Not an avalanche of google citations, many of which will be using the term because others used it who also were wrong. I know my words are wasted on you, you don't listen to others, nor respect them either. Whether me or the Wuikinuxv, you just don't respect people......and don't respect Wikipedia guidelines too, while wrapping yourself in their flag all the time. You've been clearly out of line and were shown up in the other RMs that you resisted so fiercely and nastily......are you going to waste more weeks and hours of other people's energies sticking to your guns and your google shotgun, or are you going to condescened that, gee, you might be wrong, and maybe these people DO have the right to decide what others call them? No, too easy, I'm curious, have you ever done anything to add to these articles, or have you only been playing games with their names?18:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

tribal council usage is "Oweekeno"
Which won't be pronounced like the supposed IPA given here for "Oowekeeno".....this is in teh phonebook, and on fnbc.com and more......if this version of the name is used at all, it should be at least what is the listed usage in Canada, not something off someone's linguistics bookshelf...it should be moved back to Wuikinuxv but there's so many "FOO people" changes that the thought of an RM is tiresome now, and shouldn't be needed because these were all speedied by "someone with an agenda", an agenda based on a strange notion of COMMONNAME being only sourced from archaic usages, which may predominate in google but are not in use today....needless to say the IPA given for "Oowekeeno" is obviously not suitable for this other spelling....the tribal council name also shows up as "Ooowekeeno (Wuikinuxv)". I may get to the bulk RM soon, taking notes and looking up names......and all these pages and categories should be "locked down" to prevent more scr3wing around.Skookum1 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have at least moved this title to match the tribal council usage, but both Oowekeeno people and Oowekeeno are already redirects so *I* can't.Skookum1 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (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) 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Owekeeno people → Wuikinuxv – Wuikinuxv is the preferred modern usage by the government of these people themselves, over archaic renderings such as Owikeno, Oowekeeno, Oweekeno and others. Wuikinuxv was the title of this article until User:Kwamikagami moved it on July 24, 2013, claiming "common name" without actually even getting the archaicism he advanced correct. Because this was done by a speedy move, without discussion, and because the band government and the provincial government now use Wuikinuxv, this should be speedy reverted without much interloping. The cite for "Handbook of North American Indians" from 1978 might as well have been published in the Stone Age and is not credible for claims of "common name". Skookum1 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Does the nominator have any evidence of common usage in reliable sources? (The case presented above looks like WP:OFFICIAL). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The "common usage in reliable sources" issue is how we got here, as someone had invoked older "common usage" even though he didn't even get that right. Yes, this is the spelling preferred officially by the eponymous Wuikinuxv Nation government, and will be found in usages be federal, provincial and regional district governments and other similar bodies.  These people are small, their territory remote and obscure, they do not figure in media reportage much and do not figure in travel literature, except perhaps in sports fishing literature as Rivers Inlet is rather famous in that degree; what the fishing lodges there use in their literature, if they even mention these people, remains to be seen.   I'll search for such, and for vancouversun.com mentions and the like; but older reliable sources, particular academia from bygone eras and distant places, have to be discounted; it's not just OFFICIAL it's WP:Strong national sentiment.. in this case not of Canadian English but of the Wuikinuxv's own sentiment and preferences; their official use comes from their elders, and from the linguists who developed the new spelling system.  Definitely, if there was a search limited to the last year for "Wuikinuxv" vs "Owekeeno" (or variants), the former would be found as to what is now the established usage. Archaic usages have to be discounted, and it should not be the place of Wikipedia to tell a small nation what it can call itself; the spectre of parochialism is all over such a logic.  WP:OFFICIAL is not a reason to not use a name cf the decision on the official style of regional district names (hyphens per the enabling legislation and the BC govt's own official style guide, vs MOS fanatics wanting to impose the dash).  Aboriginal names are inherently not served well by common usage statistics, in that mention of them is not common to start with; and the history of faulty nomenclature derived by academics and officials from elsewhere means that what IS common is now considered archaic and is in disuse.Skookum1 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * comment In answer to Brown-Haired Girl's query there are 7,370 results for "Wuikinuxv" excluding "wikipedia" and you will please note the quality/calibre of these cites, which aren't just "official" but also places like the Museum of Anthropology at UBC. Vs 4,110 results for "Owekeeno" when references to the lake, the inlet, the airport and the village are excluded  The fallacy with Kwami's complaint in a section above - "If you do a Google Book search, and do not skew the results by appending "people" to one and not the other, "Oowekeeno" is more common, even after manually verifying each hit to exclude false positives. " - very pointedly doesn't take into account that "Wuikinuxv" need note be used with "people", and that his supposition, and googles, alleging that "Owekeeno" is more common doesn't take into account all the other uses of that spelling; which are partly why the more linguistically-correct version Wuikinuxv is being used to refer to the people and their government, so that there is no confusion with the place; much the same issue as St'at'imc vs. Lillooet (and Lil'wat vs Mt Currie), Skwxweu7mesh vs Squamish, Tsilhqot'in vs. Chilcotin, Secwepemc vs Shuswap, Ktunaxa vs Kootenay etc.  Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment and to repeat, and underscore Uysvdi's response to Kwami last year, this was an undiscussed move and should have been reverted immediately; the move was without proper citation as Kwami used googles including river, lake, airport etc to justify what he claims is "COMMONNAME". If he had trotted out linguistics refs, which he didn't, anything published in the last few years, also, is likely to be Wuikinuxv rather than any of the older/more archaic renderings of the name.  A comment made elsewhere, on the RM at Talk:Stawamus to the effect that "we don't have to go by what the people prefer to call their community" is often heard in related discussions, including in the RMs last year (from Kwami, no less) that "we don't have to go by what these people prefer to call themselves and want others to call them" - implicitly that Wikipedia has a "right" to dictate what they will be called based on allegedly reliable (if out of date) sources.  COMMONNAME applies here, yes indeedy, and the current COMMONNAME, which is also OFFICIAL, is "Wuikinuxv".Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I've been busy elsewhere, but for those who come up with the refrain about "We" (as if "We" meant Wikipedia when they're speaking for themselves only) "don't have to care what the people think", I found WP:ETHNICGROUP to the effect that "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." This particular article has RS that favour the new, modern term, rather than the allegedly-most-common-but-not archaicism that was foisted on it (with a wrong spelling), but this should be recognized across the board on native articles equally as much as all the ranting about COMMONNAME and UE and other misapplied or not-fully-quoted guidelines that stand in the way of what should be easy changes to usages in modern English; not what is "prevalent in anthropological literature", said on Talk:Holikachuk people in regard to the offensive-to-the-Deg-Hitan title.  Funny though when I bring up the idea that what the people want should be considered, I'm thrown too often WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTCENSORED and yet that naming convention for ethnicities and tribes is sitting there all the time, passed over in silence.  Why is that, exactly?  Prejudice?  Ignorance?  Arrogance?? Skookum1 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per Article titles (policy) and Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) (guideline). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment to the eventual closer Please read the closer's comments on a similar title-debate on Talk:St'at'imc which mandate the use of "Wuikinuxv" by precedent.Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 22 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 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Comment As I've done for the primarytopic debate at Lillooet, British Columbia, I've gone to the BC government's website and run:
 * a search for "Wuikinuxv, yielding 268 results; note titles mentioned in results such as "Wuikinuxv Land Use", "Wuikinuxv Plan Boundary", "Wuikinuxv Land and Marine Use Zones Protection", (and on the strategic land use planning document, the phrasing " "The 'Wuikinuxv' or the 'First Nation'", capital-T "Wuikinuxv Territory", and "Wuikinuxv (formerly known as Oweekeno)". A search for "Oweekeno" without "formerly" re mentions of Wuikinuxv, yields the same number but a glance at a few of them demonstrates that they were all before the official name change.  In re that, note " If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." from WP:TITLE.
 * On the Government of Canada website:
 * there are 1050 results for "Wuikinuxv", then:
 * for the construction "Oweekeno/Wuikinuxv",
 * for "Oweekeno -Wuikinuxv there are 376 results], some including "Wui'Kinuxv" with many of the "Oweekeno" phrasings to do with the river or the lake or the village (that BC Names citation for that name is from 1998),
 * for "Wuikinuxv -Oweekeno" there are 127 search results
 * for the spelling that Kwami first moved this to, claiming it was most common, TWO results on the BC government site and 14 on the Canadian government site and none on the BC Names site. He said that was 'most common' but who the frack knows where that notion came from; there are so many spellings for this item that only the modern one should be considered.  I hope that's clear by now.
 * I will continue such searches in a while, a friend has just arrived for a visit.Skookum1 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Vancouver Sun website there are 5 results for "Wuikinuxv" and no results for "Oowekeeno"Skookum1 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a by-the-way, the spelling for the lake named after them is "Owikeno" as is "Owikeno Point" which is at the junction of Hardy and Moses Inlets in the same region, maybe 20-30km away (the map on that page has no scale).Skookum1 (talk) 12:17, 22 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.