Jump to content

Talk:Kawésqar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Alacalufe)
[edit]

from http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1586770.htm

New business

[edit]

images???

Patagonian cave paintings stun scientists

Chilean and French scientists announced they have discovered for the first time elaborate pre-Columbian cave paintings by indigenous Alacaluf people on an isolated island in Patagonia.

More than 40 stunning paintings were located inside the so-called Pacific Cave on Madre de Dios island, in Chile's far south, expedition head Bernard Tourte of France said.

The Alacaluf, a nomadic and seafaring people indigenous to the area, were not previously known to have produced such art.

"For years, people have insisted that this group did not engage in artistic expression, so now we are seeing that they were more advanced than had been believed," anthropologist Marcelo Aguilera said.

The paintings, in mostly black and ochre colours, have a range of subject matter and varied techniques, according to Mr Aguilera.

The two-month expedition, sponsored by the French and Chilean governments, cost $800,000.

Alacaluf or Kawésqar?

[edit]

The article uses the terms interchangeably, but Alacaluf is also listed as one of the component tribes. Should we standardise on one or the other name throughout? PhilUK (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kawésqar consider these terms pejorative, as they are not their own name for themselves or autonym - it is Kawésqar". According to University of Chile, the right name is Kawésqar. This name is the rignt name as translated by french researcher José Emperaire who has translated the Kawésqar language. Alacaluf is not friendly. The proposal is to rename Alacaluf people to Kawésqar people. This was done for the french version.

--Rgimilio (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted
The Kawésqar consider these terms pejorative
till the assertion is proved--that foreign ethnonyms are pejorative when power balance is uneven is a common idea among activists nowadays (cf Eskimo#Nomenclature); scientifically it's muddy waters. --tickle me 08:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
En mi primer trabajo de campo, en 1975, todos los miembros del grupo de Puerto Edén aceptaban el nombre alacalufe, porque así los denominaban los no kawésqar, pero de mucho antes se autodenominaban kawésqar y una vez que la gente de Puerto Edén se constituyó como comunidad establecida para efectos legales, han rechazado todo nombre que no sea kawésqar.
“Ley Indígena”, promulgada el 28-09-1993 y publicada el 05-10-1993, dice en el “Título I. De los indígenas, sus culturas y sus comunidades. Párrafo 1°. Principios Generales”: “El Estado reconoce como principales etnias indígenas de Chile a: la Mapuche, Aimara, Rapa Nui o Pascuenses, la de las comunidades Atacameñas, Quechuas, Collas y Diaguita del norte del país, las comunidades Kawashkar o Alacalufe y Yámana o Yagán de los canales australes”3.
La grafía “Kawashkar” y su pronunciación no es aceptada por la comunidad de los canales australes, tampoco “Alacalufe”; por otro lado [J] (transcrito “sh”) no existe en la lengua kawésqar. No sabemos cuál es el origen de tal grafía, pero a pesar de la petición de la comunidad respecto al cambio de esta grafía por “Kawésqar”, la respuesta de los distintos gobiernos del país ha sido que es mejor dejarla así porque un cambio requiere un cambio de la ley, lo cual tiene una larga tramitación.
This establish that the people in question prefer to be called Kawésqar and are done so (or almost) by Chilean law. Further the article explains the orogin of Alacaluf as spurious. Sietecolores (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alacalufe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. The fact that the people group's name starts with a K is not questioned. Primacy of the people group over their language was debated, but ultimately we have two criteria for primary topic, pageviews and long-term educational significance. Pageviews pointed in favor of the people group (though it was well debated if they pointed enough in favor of them). However, the other major criterion, long-term significance, also points towards the people group as well. (This was raised by one of the supporters of the move, and no opposer was able to rebut that argument.) It therefore appears that a policy-based consensus shows that the people group has primacy. Per WP:TWODABS, I now recommend listing the dab page at WP:AFD. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– 1. Kawésqar is of their preference, 2. Kawésqar is used by most modern anthropologists and 3 . Chilean law. See this article from Magallania for details. Alacalufe, albiet also of widespread use is not prefered by the people, is not used by most modern anthropologist and is etymological a series of added-up mispellings of a kawésqar word. Sietecolores (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I have reformatted this to reflect that the target page would also need to be moved. Since it was not tagged originally, this discussion shouldn't be closed until another 7 days from now. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed.
Nom's WP:COMMONNAME arguments are convincing. I would support a move to Kawésqar people, which is currently a redirect to Alacalufe.
Where there are both a people and a language, the usual practice is to have no WP:PTOPIC but to include both on a DAB page. There are many examples in Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages; for example, Anaang and Apatani. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding the explicit guidance in WP:NCLANG, drawn to my attention by Paine Ellsworth, to my rationale and !vote. "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, it is most often the case that neither is the primary topic." I have seen no argument here which displaces that. Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed. Nominator's arguments for shifting the names are convincing, and this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation,[1] so there's no need for the dab page. General consensus is that in a two dabs situation between a people and their language, the people are the primary topic over the language they speak barring evidence to the contrary. The already existing hat note works just as well.--Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I would have no objection to a move to Kawésqar people. bd2412 T 04:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Narky Blert, so the first entry should be moved to Kawésqar people, and the second entry should remain at the current title, Kawésqar. The guidelines that apply here are WP:NCET and WP:NCLANG, especially the latter, which states, Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, it is most often the case that neither is the primary topic. A title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. All due respect to Cúchullain; however, the pageviews link supplied, which shows daily averages of 23 for the people and 14 for the language is actually evidence that there is no primary topic in this case. So the NCLANG naming convention guideline is once again supported by facts. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That caveat at WP:NCLANG is simply not reflective of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or the reality of these articles, where if anything the people are considered primary in TWODABS situations barring evidence that they should be considered differently. The wording at WP:ETHNICGROUP is much more on point; NCLANG should be rewritten to be less prescriptive. At any rate here, the people get nearly 2/3 of the traffic, despite being at the wrong name, and as there's only one other topic, readers looking for the language can be sent there just as easily through a hat note as a 2-entry dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again respectfully, perhaps you could be more specific about both WP:ETHNICGROUP and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Don't see anything at the former that makes it "on point" in this request (other than the "Self-identification" section), and the latter states, A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. How does a 2/1 ratio (actually a 1.64/1 ratio) meet that guide, when more like a 10/1 or at least a 5/1 ratio is usually needed and expected before PTOPIC is applied or considered appropriate? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, NCLANG is what it is, and if changed, likely won't be so until some time after this RM is closed. Just sayin'. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ETHNICGROUP specifically defers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which points to the usual consensus that when an article is the primary topic, it takes the base name. There are always debates about how many views something should have to be the primary topic, but 2/3 of the views is generally considered sufficient in my experience, especially when there's only two topics and a hat note serves the disambiguation purpose as well as a separate dab page. Also in my experience, consensus is generally that peoples are primary topics in terms of long-term significance over the language they (or some of them) speak.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why do you want to risk the creation of bluelinks which direct readers to the wrong article? Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather send 2/3rds of the searchers to the right article and 1/3rd of them to the wrong article than send all of them to the wrong article (the dab page is the wrong article). --В²C ☎ 22:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take and it would be even more interesting if you or Cúchullain could furnish examples of when a 1.64/1 ratio resulted in a PTOPIC for those who are represented by such a low ratio. I've never seen such a low ratio result in a PTOPIC, not in the many years I've been on Wikipedia. So I know you don't have a crystal ball; however, your answer suggests that you would rather send more than 400 readers each month to the wrong article instead of sending nearly 1200 readers a month to a helpful dab page where they can choose for themselves what they want to read? And that doesn't even include the incorrect blue links NB asked you about, the number of which can grow exponentially over time. I'd like to understand this line of reasoning, but I don't. Just doesn't make sense to me, sorry. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at these page views, which deny what has been said here about people/language. The French and Chinese languages are about 4/1 and 3/1 respectively over the peoples; however, neither language is considered the primary topic! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kawésqar&oldid=1207932170"