Talk:Alutiiq

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

i've got to do some research on these people and their language.

Gringo300 02:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between the Alutiiq people & the Alutiiq language

Should there be separate articles for Alutiiq the people & Alutiiq the language? --Yksin 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do the split, even if either one is only the barest of stubs; there are separate categories, etc. that each would belong to and it's a standard in {{NorthAmNative}} (the indigenous people's Wikiproject).Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koniag/Koniaga

I'm not familiar enoguh with the Alutiiq to know if the Koniag are a separate group or a subgroup; they figure in many articles concerning Russian America, including Juvenaly of Alaska. Can someone please clarify this?Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yupik?

I understand that this reference may be cited somehow but it should be know that Alutiiq people do not consider themselves neither Aleut nor Yupik and although they (we) share some similarities with them, we are different. It is troublesome when dealing with such an unknown group of people because there are many usually creditable resources that incorrectly record information about us.

(Alchier (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alutiiq people → Alutiiq – target is redirect to current title created by Kwami on Jun 28, 2011 contrary to WP:UNDAB Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Alutiiq is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alutiiq. 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) 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

This is fundamentally flawed. The term "Alutiiq" was coined recently by a professional linguist, Jeff Lear, visiting Alaska under questionable social theorism. There is a primitive belief that Koniaqs are an admixture of Yupiks living southerly. This is forensicly false. The DNA of Aleuts and Yupiks are completely, physically transposed. The term was presented to the Kodiak population who were easily persuaded to adopt the identifier thus creating the current fiction and embroidery of facts. Aleuts are genetically one and the same. It would be scientific to replace the contemporary term "Alutiiq" with "Aleut" to be less confusing and be more authentic or authentiiq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Aleution (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2021 June 5 (UTC)

G Aleution are you referring to the Jeff Lear listed, 3rd down, on this page? It would seemthat he is from Juneau, Alaska. Is there another one? Also are you saying that Alutiiq peoples are the same as the Aleut peoples? You will need to bring some sources that show there is only the one group. Also be careful about what you say. We have Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that govern what you can say about people without sources. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere that this article argues that the distinction is genetic, which makes sense because that's just not how this works. I'm quite certain the Sugpiaq people do not consider themselves Aleuts. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]