Talk:Duwamish people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quality

History has been filled out, but for recent history. Early or recent notable people, artists, heroes? (Leads in Green, see Bibliography.) Other leads?

Change paragraphs order? Maybe move the last 2 paragraphs of the introduction to ==Society==, or Society and ==History==, respectively.

Last paragraph, "Like many Northwest Coast natives, [...] fishing" (with Mee-Kwa-Mooks Park) has been moved.

Change sections order? Moved "Seattle before the city" to beside "History". --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the article need any further summary of the treaty dispute? If so, sources? It's pretty straightforward, and spelled out in History, further with the {{See also to Relations with the natives.

Treaty issues detailed in Treaty of Point Elliott. --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Added (previously): --07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Point Elliott

(Duwamish (tribe))

5 Implementation of the treaty

5.1 The Treaty of Point Elliott

5.2 After the treaty

Images: A big pow-wow (or two) is coming up very soon at Sand Point-Magnuson Park, if anyone has a camera ... is held later July–earlier August. Locations vary. Purpose of each is slightly different. [ed. --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]

Article is getting large.

• 'Wrote a draft summary paragraph to spin off Cheshiahud or Lake John with a {{See also|name}}. Would like to keep the story of Cheshiahud in the main article because it seems to illustrate so well the turn of the 19th century here.

Keeping it would make the main article about 70 KB. Is that okay, or too big?

• Spin off "Seattle before the City of Seattle"? (leaving a summary paragraph in the main article).
• Keeping article from becoming too big, {{See also|History of Seattle before 1900#Relations with the natives is utilized. I think this article and History of Seattle before 1900 make interestingly contrasting counterpoints.

• • Spin off "Duwamish Tribe history"? "Recent history" to the same article? (leaving summary paragraphs in the main article). 81-82 KB to 71 KB. --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What else is needed? Comments?

Peer review could be useful.

--GoDot 05:38, 26 July 2006

Summary expansions, questions

Summary: + ft, + cit & fmt, + headings, External l.->See also; see Talk.
Expansion: Add short full text (ft), add text, add citations & format templates, add section headings (and content), "External links" changed to "Further reading"; see Discussion. Existing text retained as could.

"External links" -> "Further reading", per WP:Manual of Style, Further reading/external links.

"The Lushootseed word for the Duwamish people is"

Does anyone know the Wikipedia &#___; code for recording the [schwa] character and the [square root] character in plain text? Found. --07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A Wikilink to an audio pronunciation of IPA: [Dkh^w'Duw'Absh] could be way cool.

--GoDot 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC), --05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary: lead para, /*People*/, /*History*/, /*Society*/, /*Seattle before*/, + image.
Revised lead paragraph (introductory summary), added text filling out contexts under section headings. Uploaded and inserted an image. Possible if advisable: since the article is getting large, could move Cheshiahud story to

See also: Lake John

Should this be done? If so, what would be the best name for the article title about this family? Cheshiahud? For now, see Cheshiahud.

Would someone confirm the photo is okay per copyright status? Thank you. AFAIK (As far as I know) it looks okay per Wikipedia:Image use policy. If it's okay, I have another that would then qualify. --GoDot 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Postcards, antique and otherwise

":They are under the same rules as any other copyrighted media, the same as any photograph. Being a postcard does not change its copyright status. If they are published in the U.S. before 1923 or outside the U.S before 1909, they are in the public domain in the United States. --Fastfission 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)" [(emphasis added) Wikipedia_talk:Image use policy#Postcards, antique and otherwise - public domain/fair_use?] --05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cohousing condos"

Please see Talk:Cheshiahud#Historical ambiguities, Talk:Cheshiahud#Cohousing condos. --GoDot 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC), 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dkhw'Duw'Absh

Dkhw'Duw'Absh should not be used in place of Duwamish in an article titled "Duwamish." --Lukobe 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms are defined in the lead paragraph, usage in the introductory section. Basic pronunciation is in an early footnote, since most readers are not likely to deal with the complexity of International Phonetic Alphabet. Basic manners [Judith Martin, Peggy Post, sources in article] are that the owner of a proper name may define how it is pronounced. The Duwamish Tribe call themselves Dkh^w'Duw'Absh in their language; that is, the people are the Dkh^w'Duw'Absh, the Duwamish Tribe entity is seeking implementation of treaty terms for the Dkh^w'Duw'Absh people. I dunno. This has to do with resolving a way through the cross-cultural complexities. --GoDot 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

They may call themselves Dkhw'Duw'Absh in their own language, but they do appear to call themselves Duwamish in English: http://www.duwamishtribe.org/html/about_us.html -- surely we're not supposed to call Moscow Moskva and Warsaw Warszawa (although for some reason we are to call Ivory Coast Cote d'Ivoire and East Timor Timor Leste...) --Lukobe 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haughty Rhodesia has long been proud, now tragic Zimbabwe. The name "Papua" has been obscured by invasion and occupation under the façade of "Irian Jaya". More heartedly, Beijing for Peking, Mumbai for Bombay, long Kalimantan for Borneo; "Moscow" is Polish, "Moskva" is Russian. To the point: 'can search the article for "True names". --GoDot 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. But the point is the Duwamish call themselves "Duwamish" when writing in English, and so should we. If they started to call themselves "Dkhw'Duw'Absh" when writing in English, that would be something else entirely. The Russians use "Moscow" when writing in English, not "Moskva," so we use "Moscow" in the English Wikipedia. If for some reason they decided to use "Moskva" in English then I suppose we would start having to use "Moskva" (though I wouldn't much like it). What think you? --Lukobe 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Lukobe here. The article should mention their native name for themselves in the first paragraph, but other than that it should use Duwamish, which is the univerally used name when writing or speaking in English, both by tribal members and others. And in their own language, it's not Dkhw'Duw'Absh, it's Dkh^w'Duw'Absh, which is emphatically not used in English. I would point out that their own tribal website consistently uses Duwamish except on one page, Culture and History, which explains the native name. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Jmabel. Vizjim 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is particularly about Native Americans, it's not particularly about Anglos or "Bostons".

Noted. Irrelevant. --Lukobe 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Duwamish is an Anglo appellation, and the entity that is today the Duwamish Tribe was a developmental response to the European contact that became overwhelming. Before extensive contact with Whites, the peoples inhabiting what is now metropolitan Seattle were the "People of the Inside" and the "People of a Large Lake"; the Lake People considered themselves related to, but not the same as, the People of the Inside.

In an historical context, the villages described, for example, were those of the People of the Inside and the Lake People. Historically, the Duwamish today did not exist then, any more than Carthaginians were Tunisian.

What does it hurt to strive toward accuracy? In an article about Native Americans, what does it hurt to call them by their own names?

It is inconsistent. Besides, Duwamish *is* their own name in English. You are free to start the Lushootseed Wikipedia, of course. Now, there is no problem at all referring to the "People of the Inside" and "People of a Large Lake" separately and in Lushootseed, but we should mostly refer to the "Duwamish" when and where possible. --Lukobe 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The entity and appellation "Duwamish" to describe the Dkh^w'Duw'Absh, the People of the Inside, and Xacuabš, the People of a Large Lake, did not exist before it was applied in the first half of the 1850s [see sources, see also last sentence of next paragraph]. To the point, contemporary ethnographic and Chicago style is to use the accurate names in context. Cf. # Style, just below. --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Consequently, per Wikipedia style of record, Chicago Style, "Indian" is the proper term for during the 19th century ("Or, as the usage and attitudes of time would have it"). --12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As for what the Duwamish Tribe calls itself today, they have another focus. Their goal is implementation of the treaty commitments made by the U.S. Part of that is their own cultural vitality (including Luhshootseed), so going by the old name or not is not such a priority. Why would it be that big a deal? For an example among many, the Lakota and Hidatsa are commonly called Sioux, but some are adopting their traditional names. --GoDot 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC), 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To the point, accuracy is a goal. --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You love saying "accuracy is a goal." What do you actually mean by it? What are you trying to contribute to the discussion by posting that? --Lukobe 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Concluding sentence summary of preceding paragraph. (2) Often, more digging (research) and polishing (editing) is needed to get there. And 'nuff said : ) --12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Style

Where not clear, Wikipedia style recommends Chicago. "Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style" [WP:Style#When_all_else_fails].

Foreign words
Italicize isolated words. [Chicago (2003) 7.51, p. 325]

Ethnic names, names of places
"[S]hould attempt to use forms of names appropriate to the period under discussion", per Merriam-Webster Geographic Dictionary. [Chicago (2003) 8.46, p. 326] Ancestral data about the Duwamish Tribe (c. 4,000 B.P. (before present)–c. 1850) predates the formation of the Duwamish Tribe (c. mid 1850s). [ed. --12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)]

Further specifics not found in Chicago, so
Foreign words
Quotes in foreign language, all exactly as in original; italicize. [Gibaldi MLA style manual (1999) 2.14, p. 50]

Names in other languages
"[C]onsult relevant references". [Gibaldi (1999) 3.6, p. 89] May adapt the style of the system for pinyin replacing Wade-Giles. "In general, you use the pinyin system, adding the Wade-Giles spelling, in parentheses, for the names of persons who died before 1950 or who are better known by the older spelling. This practice allows a reader unfamiliar with the systems [...] to become acquainted with [...] them." [Gibaldi (1999) 3.6.12, pp. 88–9] The analog, of course, is use of the traditional Lushootseed that is being revitalized as part of Duwamish tribal heritage, itself a useful aspect of article content.

Ethnographic publications of the University of Washington Press and the University of British Columbia (Seattle, Vancouver, London) use the accurate forms as well as the Anglicized. For example, cf. Boyd (1999) (also, the cover painting is way cool). Where the Anglicized are very inaccurate, the accurate forms are used instead. In fairness to readers (and Wikipedia goals), accuracy is useful in further research; it is useful to at least provide both forms where there is more than one.

Having the Chinook Jargon names could be similarly useful.

--GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So far we have 4 in favor of Duwamish and 1 (you, GoDot) in favor of Dkh^w'Duw'Absh. Granted, only 2 of us (Jmabel and I) have presented reasons for our opinion. But that's still 2 to 1. Do you want to bring more people into the discussion or can we go ahead with our proposal? --Lukobe 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Link at Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles has Talk:Duwamish (tribe)#Poll link, no other incidences of "Duw" found. Location Talk:Duwamish (tribe)#Poll has one response found, 3 elsewhere on page. Cf. # Dkhw'Duw'Absh and # Poll, this page. --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What? --Lukobe 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA

What is this?

[dxwd[square root][schwa]w?abš]

[square root]? [schwa]? GoDot? --Lukobe 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For the rest of this article, Dkhw'Duw'Absh will be used as the better approximation in English than Duwamish for reference to the tribe or people...GoDot, will you agree to replace Dkhw'Duw'Absh with Duwamish? If not, I'm going to have to go through myself and do it, but fear I may be trampling on some of the IPA you've scattered through the article. It is more difficult to edit an article after you've started working on it. Hope you understand. --Lukobe 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A: [square root], [schwa] are were identifying placeholders until the "&__;" codes to render them can could be found.

Unicode equivalents found. Also, although IPA states the style convention is to enclose IPA in square brackets, books published by the University of Washington Press use IPA in text denoted merely with italics, and the accurate native words are used.

For readability, that style is demonstrated, at least until a more specific guideline is found. --GoDot 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the "IPA" used on the page--it's quite non-standard and difficult to read. I'm going to use the pronunciation guidelines at the bottom of the page to clean it up, if no one objects. --Red Newt 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(a) Please do. To everyone: If you know Lushootseed or IPA, please note specific errors.

See also Duwamish (tribe)# note-4, particularly items (1.1) and (2). "note-4", item (1) could be checked for accuracy. (Also, at the end of "note-4", item (1), "The [square root] marker merely divides modifier prefixes from roots, for dictionary lookup convenience." --per Bates, Hess, & Hilbert). I've been using IPA as the standard, so I'd like to find out what was missed.

The same style (and errors) would be at two "See also" pages: Cheshiahud and Seattle before the city.

(b) Would anyone know where could be found the "&__;" codes to record special characters in plain text? For example, [schwa] and [square root], analagous to [''...w&# 660;ab&# 353;''] for [...wʔabš]. --GoDot 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC). Found. --07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: See also == Quality ==, above.

Unicode for IPA characters have been pasted. For now, IPA style and name usage is per University of Washington Press (and interpreted from Chicago Manual (2003), cf. # Style, above). --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA characters

My software can do Xacuabš, but not ?d?w?abš, so must make do with ''& radic;d& #592;w& #660;abš'' for √dɐwʔabš, ''& #592;'' for ɐ (schwa). --GoDot 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Poll begun today. Opinions solicited at Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles --Lukobe 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: How to refer to the tribe in their article: Duwamish or Dkhw'Duw'Absh?

1. Duwamish. --KPbIC 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this aspect of style an XOR (exclusive or) question? Cf. # Style and # Dkhw'Duw'Absh, above. --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Both forms do not need to appear throughout the article. One form should be used throughout, with the other form being mentioned once or twice as needed. By the way, why haven't you tried moving the article to Dkhw'Duw'Absh? --Lukobe 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) "As needed" will take some polishing. Per Chicago, "use forms of names appropriate to the period under discussion" (cited above). For the casual reader, I suggest including the most commonly-known form as well, as needed. (1.1) Names changed over time. (2) Early spelling error. Was superceded by "Dwamish" and "Duwamish tribe" c. 1850s. Dkh^w'Duw'Absh is 'way too inconvenient to type into the box beside the "Go" button : )` --GoDot 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Duwamish. This page is currently an unreadable mess. Use the English name alone with the native name mentioned once. This is also consistent with the usage in other tribes' articles. Rmhermen 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia uses The Chicago Manual of Style or relevant published style guides, as modified by Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as the standard. See references cited above (# Style). --GoDot 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll choices adequate? NatAm project consistency?

This debate is analogous to issues that have arisen for me as a historian of Africa. I find it hard to accept either of the choices posed in the poll (apart from my newbie question of whether I'd have standing as a non-editor of the page).

I think any Wikipedian in good standing is welcome. --GoDot 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On one hand I have considerable sympathy with the anachronism issues raised by GoDot, but think GoDot's own approach also has anachronism problems. To wit: if prior to 1851, or 1855, or whatever the appropriate date would be, the ancestors of today's Duwamish people derived from two distinct peoples or communities that called themselves by different names, it does seem to be a major problem to project a later name that elides that distinction backward. But is also seems a major problem to project the IPA orthography for one of those peoples or communities forward onto the transformed and unified latter-day tribe.

These were not simple distinct communities. That's the problem for Westerners. Adjacent were distinct but related. Further, Native American tribes have evolved and acted as well as being acted upon. The IPA is the indigenous naming, appropriate to the period under disccussion. per manual of style. --22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the distinct but related phenomenon in general, it applies to communities & polities in pre-colonial southern Africa as well, though they were more hierarchical than the coastal Salish seem to have been. But there were multiple indigenous pre-colonization namings within the daisy chain you describe. So the choice of only one to represent the multiplicity, the one that corresponds most closely to the mutilated name "Duwamish" connected to the rigidification and flattening and social reconstruction involved in making post-colonization "tribes", unfortunately I think does not do much to change that flattening. It conveys that renaming happened but perhaps not so much about what it meant, to a naive reader. This is a problem caused by need (?)/ desire (?) to use "Duwamish (tribe)" as the entry heading because that is today's point of entry for those with little knowledge who want more.

Which brings me to "style." Style is a means to an end, or several, but not really an end in itself. I am not familiar with how the choices about style references for Wikipedia evolved, but I do know that The Chicago Manual is meant primarily for monographs and scholarly articles and as such should be treated or applied in conjunction with the larger purposes of the Wikipedia which are explicitly not monographic or detailed scholarship. In this case I support the principle you advance about chronologically appropriate names as a proper use of that guiding authority for the end of consistency. But I think there are two choices about chronological appropriateness already reflected in the editing as it has evolved, that of linguistic orthographic precision reflected in IPA renderings, and that of semantic precision reflected in translating the content of those names -- the very fact that they had content is tremendously important, I think I'd argue the most important aspect. "Duwamish" to an English-speaker is only a collection of arbitrary sounds, and likewise in indigenous languages, though there its distortion from something else may be more apparent. Dkhw'Duw'Absh to an English-reader is no less a collection of arbritrary sounds, only it is more obscure how to pronounce them. Misapplying "Duwamish" because it's easier for English-readers to pronounce is the wrong approach, but I'd still plump for semantically strong translation over phonetic or orthographic precision that fails to convey the meaning. Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In this sense I think GoDot's discussion of the transformations induced by colonization is persuasive (& familiar in many respects in analogy to African societies and identities). But it cuts two ways. It is a strong argument against projecting "Duwamish" back. Yet it also undermines the case for carrying Dkhw'Duw'Absh forward (except in the context of describing current debates among the people about continuing tranformation of their identity).

Recent edits had been toward clearly using the appropriate name for the time under discussion. That's a style edit needing checking.

Before mid 1850s: IPA names, "People of the [...]".

After mid 1850s: contemporary names, "[...] tribe". (1850s names left out for simplicity, see Treaty of Point Elliott#Native Americans if you just must know). --22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This all seems good, though I'd hope within the context of recognizing the two strategies mentioned above for rendering "the appropriate name for the time." Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems to me that GoDot's expository approach, and the current structure of the article, is wrong end around. This is based on a view that the aim should be a Wikipedia entry that will draw encyclopedia consulters from a likely position of complete or serious ignorance, combined with desire to know better, into not only more knowledge of the people and their history, but also into greater awareness of the complexities of social and identity transformation.

From == Quality ==, at top: "Change paragraphs order?"
So far, this has largely grown organically or ad hoc. The original skeleton was names, people, social structures, then history.  ::Move the more complex naming to after "people", or to a spin off article, leaving all the names in English? (People of the [...]", [...] tribe") (I prefer using the most accurate names, but that may be too complicated too soon.)

Please believe me that I have great sympathy with your preference for accuracy. But I think what we are wrestling with here is how to create a process of accurate communication to begin with, so that by the end of the entry a naive reader can understand something of what the accurate orthographic representation means & why it matters. Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In my view the material that now leads the article is misplaced both because it will simply turn some readers away, and because it will not be clear to someone not used to dealing with such questions why this stuff matters, until they have contextualizing information that now comes only later. The current intro reads as a linguistics article rather than a general article on the people/tribe; likewise with handling of "Chief Seattle".

The info right after the lead paragraph is largely left over from when the article was much smaller, and may need to move now that it and the article have much more detail. --22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet I also think the approach of "mention the IPA form once or twice and then just use Duwamish" also is not sufficient, both because of the anachronism problems and because it shortchanges how the naming issue relates to historical transformations and current issues.

We basically have three sets of names: (1) before contact, (2) at contact and conquest (left out for simplicity), and (3) contemporary (which is both an evolution and consolidation).

Use the English word sachem or "high-status man" instead of si'áb? "Chief" would be very misleading.

--22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations about entry evolution. One reason to be frugal with the use of IPA is to make choices to stress particular indigenous words carry more punch. I'd suggest making the gloss of si'áb as "high status man" and then alternating use of the word with the translated phrase to emphasize the point. ("Sachem" might help some readers but not others & seems to pose some questions about "pan-Indianness" it might be simpler to avoid, since it derives from white interpretations of eastern peoples I think (?).) In cases where it is juxtaposed to a personal name I personaly would lean to "the si'áb XYZ", and to using the translated phrase in alternation with si'áb in places describing general characteristics or activities of persons so designated. Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sachem: yes & yes. You can easily check at [http;//www.dict.org dict.org], besides a 'net search. (I'd come across it again in other research and dict.org has it succinctly.) --GoDot 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus I would suggest an approach that frames the topic and leads into the discussion using accessible English, including setting up the "People of the Inside" and "People of the Large Lake" distinction in English in just that way, flagging further discussion below about names and language, and likewise with Chief Seattle, if the apparent choice to highlight him early out of expected interest is maintained. But I would also argue that in discussing the pre-colonization period it is desirable and important to be quite clear about what the names and peoples were then, to use them and not "Duwamish," and to say something about how Dkhw'Duw'Absh became "Duwamish" and what happened to the older distinction of communities.

Some shorter points: I think the organization of the article as whole needs to be rethought in other ways. At present it seems to be an almost arbitrarily ordered collection of disconnected chunks. It needs rethinking in terms of what order of information will draw in and build up the understanding of the mainly ignorant knowledge seeker, and in terms of what order enables active transitions in a textual sense.

From == Quality ==, at top: "Change paragraphs order?" This has grown organically.

The initial order was that of introducing names, people, then events and history: context before discussing treaty issues. It has not had a major review since sections about society were added. --22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes sense -- I guess I'm anwering your question at top "yes" :-). The society vs. event history relationship always poses chicken & egg and repetitiveness problems for narrative, and the same can happen with sections on prominent individuals vs. descriptions of events they were involved in. Your strategy below looks like it could work pretty well.

I have a curiosity as to how different the "Salish" classification (which appears to be ethnic as well as linguistic in the article) is from "Duwamish", as an Anglicization. I am guessing it must be one. Does it provide an analogy useful in thinking about choices of when to use "Duwamish"?

Salish is linguistic, Coast Salish is largely linguistic, but is also used ethnically for want of better classification for describing shared commonalities. See also Coast Salish, Talk:Coast Salish and Talk:Native American name controversy (as well as Native American name controversy). --22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I suspect that related issues must arise across the entire Native American strengthening effort for Wikipedia that I saw mentioned along the way but can't find now. This makes me wonder if there isn't a broader question of principle that should be decided at the level of that effort/project, which would provide guidance both in this specific case and in others where similar issues could or perhaps should arise? I am not sure however if there is a mechanism for such a discussion or decision.

With newbie apologies if this is hopelessly naive, and gratitude to you all for your seriousness. Ngwe 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your fresh perspective.

Two key points highlighted by Ngwe:

1. Names changed through the initial period of rapid change after first contacts.

2. Native Americans in general, and Coast Salish in particular, just didn't do things in ways that White people could readily understand. Native social structures (and economics) drove Whites to distraction.

2.a. Adjacent villages were interconnected in an unbroken daisy chain throughout most of the Salish Sea. They didn't have formal states, but they did share common elements in fluid relationships such that the Coast Salish just didn't fit neatly into Western (White) categories. (See also Talk:Native American name controversy, Treaty of Point Elliott#Native Americans and # Governor Stevens and the U.S. government). In contemporary English, the People of the Inside, the People of Lake Washington (the Large Lake), the People of Lake Sammamish and to a little lesser exent, the People of the Snoqualmie were all closely interrelated in something like a daisy chain—plus the Suquamish. The Inside People and the Lake Washington People were a relatively dense populaton and were the most immediately dispossessed.

So a problem is how to sort this out, and in a most interesting way.

So

an approach that frames the topic and leads into the discussion using accessible English,

including setting up the "People of the Inside" and "People of the Large Lake" distinction in English in just that way, flagging further discussion below about names and language

Major headings and subheadings, provisional

1 Names (in plain English only, as much as we have)

2 People

3 Society

4 History

4.1 Seattle before the City of Seattle

4.2 Contact and rapid change

4.3 The Treaty of Point Elliott

4.3.1 Implementation of the treaty

4.4 After the Treaty

4.5 Recent history

5 More about names

--GoDot 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"3.1 Seasons"

(I'd suggest specifying a rough baseline time for the societal description, to call into question stereotypes of timelessness & also indicating areas of subsequent change and continuity & maybe rough timing of changes if some things changed later than others -- not in detail, but consider if there are things from 4.2, 4.4 or 4.5 you want to foreshadow Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

This is largely covered in Coast Salish#Culture group or ethnography, and # History (add {{See also|...|Coast Salish#History}}). We simply have no information before about 1850 but for trace archeology, scattered log entries, and what recorded oral tradition that has survived efforts at erasure. "Not to put too fine a point on it" [Dickens], but this is a Talk page, so I might be a little less circumspect here: With locating White settlements on top of Native villages (for mixed reasons), civil engineering, and repeated arson, most local archeological informtion has long been destroyed. Plus, "swept in the wake of the first tall sails". I would rather not be too explicit about this, at least not until the present article has general consensus.

Proposal for article: "Regarding [before/prior to] the 1850s (the time of the Inside People and the Lake People), there is very little information, for a mix of reasons (see also Coast Salish#Culture group or ethnography). Societal descriptions are a snapshot illustrating structures in the second quarter of the 19th century and a little after. Local contact and changes began accelerating greatly from 1833."

--GoDot 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"5 More about names"

Put the naming and naming issues somewhere, maybe spin off in a subsidiary article. I dunno, maybe just point out that many Native ways drove the Whites into a frenzy of exasperation (which they did), and call them all Duwamish? ; ) --GoDot 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

4.1: I'd suggest reinforcing the English translation of place & community names and connecting them to accurate IPA renderings in 4.1.

I don't have any further translations for 4.1 (including Bates, Hess, & Hilbert, # Bibliography, since I'm not fluent in IPA Lushooteed). What's there is all I could find. I wouldn't want to attempt converting someone else's plain phonetic interpretation back into IPA Lushootseed—too prone to error. This will have to wait for a Wikipedian who knows Lushootseed, also for whom Bates, Hess, & Hilbert could be useful.

Anyone, any proposals for summary sentences or paragraph? --11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

4.2: I'd suggest discussing whites' difficulties of comprehension under contact and their definitions/ redefinitions/ renamings among pressures for change or situations requiring adaptation & counteraction in 4.2.

I would rather not be too explicit about this, at least not until the present article has general consensus. See also Treaty of Point Elliott#Context and # Gov. Stevens & U.S. government.

Anyone, any proposals for summary sentences or paragraph?

And the legal implications of names should be discussed for the treaty and implementation, and also for subsequent power relations under U.S. "Indian policy," where struggles to defend or regain some older things, and have access to some new things, of course very much could depend on adopting or adapting to white-imposed names and identities, at least situationally or for specific purposes.

These specifics I have found very little about [is that grammatical English?]. Is the name thing a little overwrought? So far, my sense from research is that the Duwamish, Native people, and Native leaders are more focused on recognition and on implementation of treaty terms. Names would be a means toward that end.

4.5: Insofar as reassertion of proper or accurate names and assertive claims for recognition of indigenous interpretations are an important feature of recent history, that would come under 4.5, perhaps in connection (and tension due to treaty & statutory legal constraints?) with local and national sovereignty struggles.

This is a topic for an article. Until we have consensus so far, this needs a single sentence.

Proposal for article: "Reassertion of names and validation of claims for recognition are important features of recent history, in connection and tension with treaty terms, statutory legal constraints, and the political mood of judges and American society over decades. The relationship between Native people and the rest of American society largely hinges upon whether the U.S. government is in the overall mood for complying with treaty obligations and the U.S. Constitution." [Deloria in Davis (1994), pp. 645–9, Treaty of Point Elliott# note-5; and Clinton in Davis (1994), pp. 645–9, Treaty of Point Elliott# note-6 {from Treaty of Point Elliott#Context}]

I think a final section on names would be a good idea, with more information on relation to language and accurate representation, and maybe

a synthetic overview referring back to points mentioned previously and pulling them together on why names matter. Ngwe 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [Added {line break:number} --GoDot 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

Inside People, Lake People became the Duwamish tribe; use their names in their language for occasional emphasis, where emphasis would be useful.

Anyone, any proposals for summary sentences or paragraphs? --GoDot 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Point Jordan

Is this maybe supposed to be Point Elliot? I can't find any info on a treaty of this name, and the year given (1855) is the year PE was signed. Murderbike 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And, indeed, the cited source refers repeatedly to the Point Elliot treaty, and makes no reference to a "Point Jordan". Perhaps someone got confused by the term Chinook Jargon in close proximity to a mention of Point Elliot? - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Streamline article

Just a general observation, having stumbled on this article. It could benefit greatly from being reorganized and streamlined. Much of the same information is repeated in various places throughout the article. For example there is a section on "Name", then later "More about names" which repeats some of the historical info contained above. And it's rather annoying that the glosses for various items such as "People of the Lake" are repeated at each occurrence of the item (in some cases in different forms). If I had the time I'd make an attempt to improve it.

Just a note on the discussion above: IMHO, the IPA pronunciation should be given ONCE, for informational purposes, with a note to explain it in more universally understood terms. Otherwise the conventional name as used in the article's title when it is necessary to use a name at all (since the article is about the Duwamish in some cases just "the tribe" or "people" would suffice). Gr8white (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is such a mess that it is hard to know where to begin. And the extremely idiosyncratic footnoting style makes it scary to consider moving material around. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my doing a series of edits over the course of several days that, along the way, may temporarily make this more of a mess? If no one objects in the next few days, I'll consider that a go-ahead. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'll start on this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I spent about 6 hours on this in what I think was a decent rewrite. For the most part, I have not fixed the idiosyncratic approach to footnoting, and I hope I haven't been tripped up by that into leaving anything inaccurately cited. I would welcome a thorough check of citations (and a search for citations for uncited passages) but I think I've now done more than my share to improve this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA, redux

There is a near-article about IPA buried in a footnote here. I doubt we need it at all, but if we do I would think it belongs in the Lushootseed article, not here. I'd like to hear from at least one other participant before I do something about this. Should we remove the footnote entirely? Almost entirely? Move the material to the Lushootseed article? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"History" article

There is a rather short, separate article called History of the Duwamish tribe. About half of what is in it is duplicated here. It is focused almost entirely on the 19th century and earlier; in particular, it covers none of the post-1970 history recounted here. I think perhaps there should be some refactoring between the two articles (possibly just merging that one into this, or possibly thinning out the history here and moving it to there).

I'd be interested in hearing how others would think this should be handled. The question would seem to be: is there too much history in the present article, too little, or just about the right amount? - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing & inline sources needed

This article seems kind of rambling and repetitious and could benefit from more concision. While there are many sources provided there are also many statements lacking inline citations. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1