So far as I can tell,
all the "FOO people" categories, save one (
Category:Squamish people are about "people who are FOO". If the "category name must match article name" guideline were really applied hard and strict, they would all have to be used for the people as a whole, and have to be changed to "people who are FOO" and/or "People of FOO descent". The easier solution is to revert all the "FOO people" main articles to simply "FOO".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Many articles have been spared the imposition of the "+ people" construction e.g.
Menominee. The category there is
Category:Menominee tribe which is about the federally-registered tribe, its subcategory
Category:Menominee people is about "people who are Menominee".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
the Native American category for "people who are FOO" is
Category:Native American people by tribe and as far as I can tell, haven't looked them over yet, all those are "people who are FOO", none are "ethnic group FOO".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Just as a check, I tired "French people", "Sorbian people", "Karelian people", "Welsh people", "Greek people" (just a random peoples of Europe) to see if this "_____ people" is systematic. And it's not.
Sorbs,
Karelian, and
Greeks don't fit the patterns. So, if that is the case, why are indigenous peoples of North America articles being force fitted into "_____ people"? Now, endonym or exonym? It appears in the Europeans, the English name is given but English alternatives and endonyms are also given unless then endonym has become the English exonym. In the case of indigenous peoples of North America, many endonyms have entered into English and have displaced the English exonyms, though those exonyms are still encountered (Ojibwe v. Ojibwa/Chippewa, Skwxwuymesh v. Squamish, Dene v. Athapascan), and others are in flux (Ho-chunk v. Winnebago, Fox v. Meskwaki, Diegueño v. Kumeyaay, etc.), yet others still use the English names (Mohawk v. Kanien'kehá:ka, Cherokee v. Tsalagi, etc.). The point here is that part of Self-determination of these peoples must be respected and English is changing to accommodate that, including calling the people what they call themselves (even if it may be slightly Anglicised by omitting some or all the diacritics), and Wikipedia ought to reflect that.
CJLippert (
talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
thanks for that. Canadian official and media styleguides generally have adopted, when they do, the endonyms without diacriticals. In cases like
Sto:lo to use the endonyms or not also varies within the group of peoples i.e. one tribal council uses them, the other does not. In some cases parallel spellings exist as with St'at'imc/Stl'atl'imx in the case of two different tribal councils; the latter people call themselves
Ucwalmicw however (Lower Lillooet, exclusive of the
Lil'wat). I have a friend who's
Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police, their name was recently updated to match that of the
St'at'imc Nation tribal council and the
Upper St'at'imc Language, Culture and Education Centre and the as-yet-unbuilt-still-raising-money-for-it
St'at'imc Cultural Centre.
Skookum1 (
talk) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"non-standard orthograpy" and "not English" names
Re obscure characters, there are many examples where either no options exist or where the native spelling is now predominant:
Re native names, there are many where what would otherwise not be "normal English usage" nonetheless have apostrophes and other characters that are "standard English ASCII" but where the native form has to be used e.g.
'Ksan,
'Namgis ("Ksan" and "Nimpkish" are the usual English forms of those, for the people the latter one is now obsolete though it still exists in English as
Nimpkish Lake and
Nimpkish River.
Skookum1 (
talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
SG̱ang Gwaay I myself long ago redirected to
Ninstints because of its underscore-G, and older "English" transliteration is
Skungwai, but now reconsidering that, though "Ninstints" is still more global in usage....so far. Same is true of the older form of
Skedans.
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
So far as I can tell,
all the "FOO people" categories, save one (
Category:Squamish people are about "people who are FOO". If the "category name must match article name" guideline were really applied hard and strict, they would all have to be used for the people as a whole, and have to be changed to "people who are FOO" and/or "People of FOO descent". The easier solution is to revert all the "FOO people" main articles to simply "FOO".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Many articles have been spared the imposition of the "+ people" construction e.g.
Menominee. The category there is
Category:Menominee tribe which is about the federally-registered tribe, its subcategory
Category:Menominee people is about "people who are Menominee".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
the Native American category for "people who are FOO" is
Category:Native American people by tribe and as far as I can tell, haven't looked them over yet, all those are "people who are FOO", none are "ethnic group FOO".
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Just as a check, I tired "French people", "Sorbian people", "Karelian people", "Welsh people", "Greek people" (just a random peoples of Europe) to see if this "_____ people" is systematic. And it's not.
Sorbs,
Karelian, and
Greeks don't fit the patterns. So, if that is the case, why are indigenous peoples of North America articles being force fitted into "_____ people"? Now, endonym or exonym? It appears in the Europeans, the English name is given but English alternatives and endonyms are also given unless then endonym has become the English exonym. In the case of indigenous peoples of North America, many endonyms have entered into English and have displaced the English exonyms, though those exonyms are still encountered (Ojibwe v. Ojibwa/Chippewa, Skwxwuymesh v. Squamish, Dene v. Athapascan), and others are in flux (Ho-chunk v. Winnebago, Fox v. Meskwaki, Diegueño v. Kumeyaay, etc.), yet others still use the English names (Mohawk v. Kanien'kehá:ka, Cherokee v. Tsalagi, etc.). The point here is that part of Self-determination of these peoples must be respected and English is changing to accommodate that, including calling the people what they call themselves (even if it may be slightly Anglicised by omitting some or all the diacritics), and Wikipedia ought to reflect that.
CJLippert (
talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
thanks for that. Canadian official and media styleguides generally have adopted, when they do, the endonyms without diacriticals. In cases like
Sto:lo to use the endonyms or not also varies within the group of peoples i.e. one tribal council uses them, the other does not. In some cases parallel spellings exist as with St'at'imc/Stl'atl'imx in the case of two different tribal councils; the latter people call themselves
Ucwalmicw however (Lower Lillooet, exclusive of the
Lil'wat). I have a friend who's
Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police, their name was recently updated to match that of the
St'at'imc Nation tribal council and the
Upper St'at'imc Language, Culture and Education Centre and the as-yet-unbuilt-still-raising-money-for-it
St'at'imc Cultural Centre.
Skookum1 (
talk) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
"non-standard orthograpy" and "not English" names
Re obscure characters, there are many examples where either no options exist or where the native spelling is now predominant:
Re native names, there are many where what would otherwise not be "normal English usage" nonetheless have apostrophes and other characters that are "standard English ASCII" but where the native form has to be used e.g.
'Ksan,
'Namgis ("Ksan" and "Nimpkish" are the usual English forms of those, for the people the latter one is now obsolete though it still exists in English as
Nimpkish Lake and
Nimpkish River.
Skookum1 (
talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
SG̱ang Gwaay I myself long ago redirected to
Ninstints because of its underscore-G, and older "English" transliteration is
Skungwai, but now reconsidering that, though "Ninstints" is still more global in usage....so far. Same is true of the older form of
Skedans.
Skookum1 (
talk) 04:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply