Talk:Wolastoqiyik

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolastoqiyik article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maine Low‑importance

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine 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.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: New Brunswick Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.

On 29 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Maliseet to Wolastoqiyik. The result of the discussion was moved.

Name

This name, for an entire nation of people in the world, is referenced many times in various articles on the Maliseet. Maliseet is not an accurate name for the Maliseet, as it is the name that was used by the Mic Mac when referring to our people, but it is today the commonly used term. It is important to have an article mentioning this, but it requires expansion which is ongoing.

Vandalism

Repeated vandalisation of this article is coming from IP 204.82.186.178 which is administered by the New Brunswick Department of Education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.45.26 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will this be different from Maliseet?

From what I can see, Wolastoqiyik is a synonym for Maliseet, for which we already have an article. Could you please explain what the purpose of this additional article is and why we need? It seems to me to be a content fork. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to: How will this be different from Maliseet?

First, I am Wolastoqiyik. Maliseet is a name that another nation called us (The Mic Mac). Most Wikipedia articles are using the term 'Maliseet' inappropriately. The title of the Maliseet page, if the primary reference for this nation, needs to include both terms.

At this time when you search for Wolastoqiyuk you do not find anything, as it searches only for titles of pages. Also all of the articles that have the term Maliseet should also have a reference to Wolastiqiyuk. When you click on Wolastiqiyuk anywhere in Wikipedia you should be directed to a page explaining what this is, and this is the primary reason why it is needed.

There is also the need to have pages in the language of the Wolastiqiyuk.

This page needs expansion rather then deletion.

The name is not a 'synonym'. In fact I find that, without offence intended towards the lack of understanding, a blatant reason as to why there is a need for a seperate article on the name of a nation. This name is as important in any historical records as "Great Britain", or "Germany".(WM324AHI (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, so if you have any technical suggestion that would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

First, a technical point - by creating the redirect a search for Wolastoqiyik would go to the Maliseet page rather than returning nothing.

Second, this is the English language wikipedia so articles in the "language of the Wolastiqiyuk" would not be appropiate. Although I think that keeping a language alive is important unfortunately this is not the right place.

As for the article itself, it admits that Wolastoqiyik is another name for Maliseet there really shouldn't be an article on both as much (most) of the information will be duplicated and this is against wikipedia policy. As a simialr (but not identical) example of this Cymru, the name for Wales in the Welsh language, redirects to Wales. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so I suspect a simple explanation of a name is not enough for an article. I can understand that Wolastoqiyik might be the prefered name of the people but that doesn't mean that wikipedia needs two articles. Can I suggest that the answer may be to merge the information in this article into the Maliseet page and then move the page here (i.e. so Wolastoqiyik is the title of the page when both Wolastoqiyik and Maliseet is searched for)? I would however think that there would need to be consensus for this move possibly by citing relevant sources that Wolastoqiyik is the more appropiate name as making a decision as to which page should be the article page and which the redirect may well be contentious. As a moderately experienced wikipedia editor I'd be very surprised if both articles would be allowed to stand as they are if the consensus of the wider community was sought. Dpmuk (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dpmuk I find your comments offensive

WM324AH1 Response: First what was written above is offensive, and it is ignorant, although I will say it does not seem to be intentionally so.

===UH+++ Offensive. I am not replying to this right now, but I will.05:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is ignorant. It is not "Another name for Maliseet" It IS the name for Maliseet. You are really very ignorant in this comment. Actually, it is not a simple explanation for a name-- it is a NATION on this planet, and if you spent the time to read about something before commenting you would know that. You want consensus? This is the name. Just ask any Wolastoqiyik person, or do you know any? I am sorry that my tone is irritated, but this is very ignorant of you. I will reply with less irritation later, once I digest what you said. If the Wolastoqiyik consulted the 'consensus' of the community we would all be, well, someplace, and we would all be speaking English (in fact we all ready do). The usage of this word in Canada and the U.S. which is the land on which you stand, likely, unless you are in another part of the world, is land that was at one time land which was of those that were Indigenous to it, and frankly the usage of our language, if it is to stay alive, is required to be adopted INTO the English language, as that is what we all speak, due to colonization. I am assuming your suggestion that our own language and name for ourselves requires the acceptance of the 'wider' community would be acceptance by those that are not Wolastoqiyik, and we have had enough of that, and for that very purpose this article will remain, as it is what we call ourselves, and it will be written by ourselves.

Furthermore who made you the determiner of what words are a part of the English language? I am an English speaker, and the name I have for my own ethnicity, as it has been passed down to me from my ancestors, is Wolastoqiyik. If you require evidence of this, why don't you call our chief?

Now, I mean no offense to you, as I realize you likely did not intend to offend, but you are touching on a very touchy subject, after 500 years of colonization, and an entire people reclaiming their culture, their language, and their rights. I will likely have a gentler, softer, approach to this response, but comments like this are very difficult to digest.

Well as you say what I said was not meant to be intentionally offensive and I tried my best for it not to be so as it is obviously something you feel strongly about. However I think you have misunderstood me and there are several comments I'd like to make.

Firstly by your comments above I'd assumed that Wolastoqiyik was the name used in the native language and that the English language had adopted a different word (in a similar way to how English uses Germany and German uses Deutschland) - see WP:NCON for a discussion of naming conventions. Now I could understand why a different word may be offensive to you but as an English language enyclopedia we use English words hence my comments. If as you state Wolastoqiyik is used in English then my arguement is moot. I am not pretending to be the determiner of what words are parts of English I'd just obviously got the wrong idea - largely from your own comments.
Secondly as I stated above I will happily admit to not being informed enough to decide which page should have the main article and which the redirect, but from your comments even you suggest that both Wolastoqiyik and Maileet refer to the same entity and wikipedia does not have two articles on the same entity. I'm sorry if this offends you but that's how wikipedia is (at the moment WP:MM is the only palce I can find anything like a mention of this policy but I find wikipedia to be badly oreganised when it comes to policies so I suspect there's something better).
The following is not ture - "I am assuming your suggestion that our own language and name for ourselves requires the acceptance of the 'wider' community would be acceptance by those that are not Wolastoqiyik." You, and anyone else, are perferctly entitled to call yourself what you want. However wikipedia works on consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) and this includes getting consensus on the name of articles and when redirects should exist instead - and this is what I'm trying to get by this discussion. If you read the consensus policy and related articles you're realise that your thoughts will probably carry more weight but that consensus is still how wikipedia operates.
Finally I'm British not American - I find it a little offensive that you'd automatically assume I was American.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit. In general I'm trying to remain neutral on what name should be used etc (so I'd hope you take no offense) etc while trying to satisfy wikiepdia policies that there shouldn't be two articles on essentially the same subject - as there currently are. Dpmuk (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. Wolastoqiyik to be merged with this page. Aervanath (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following quite a lot of disucssion on the Wolastoqiyik talk page it would appear that Wolastoqiyik is the preferred name of these people and is everyday use in English. Changes to this article suggesting that Wolastoqiyik was the main name were made at the same time as the creation of the Wolastoqiyik article and have remained uncontested in this article. Therefore I feel that Wolastoqiyik may well be the more appropiate name due to the lack of any evedience to the contrary.

The Wolastoqiyik page as it currently stands only contains information that is repeated in this article as I recently removed the other paragraph that was there as unsourced. We could just redirect Wolastoqiyik to here but this has proved contentious (See the Wolastoqiyik talk page) so moving this page to Wolastoqiyik and redirecting Maliseet seems the most sensible way to move forward. Doing nothing doesn't appear to be an option to me as Wolastoqiyik is just a subset of Maliseet and so there's no reason for it to exist on it's own. Dpmuk (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted about this proposed move on the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________

T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.229.20 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both published sources here use Maliseet, at least in the title, and Wolastoqiyik says that Maliseet is more commonly used. Is this wrong? If it is the case, it is our normal practice to use the more familiar name; we are, after all, communicating in English, not trying to reform it. (That should be done elsewhere, and among others; when you succeed, we will certainly follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point. I was basing my move request on what was included on Talk:Wolastoqiyik as a possuble means round the problem where there was one person effectively arguing that Wolastoqiyik was correct and the others seeming not to know which was correct (only that two articles was against policy) - so a very, very weak consensus. I'd hoped to get more input by requesting the move. Personally I was and still am neutral on which page should be the redirect and which should be the actual article as I don't know enough on the subject. It would certainly appear that Maliseet was the most common name however it is less clear on how succesful any attempts to change this have been. As things stand I'm leaning towards not to move but we'll see what others have got to say before I make a final decision on my view. Either way hopefully we'll then have a consensus on which should be the redirect and which the main article. Dpmuk (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally the name most commonly used in English reliable sources should be used for the title; this does not mean it needs to be used anywhere in the article, except for once in the lead. A possible consideration in this case is Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, which gives priority to (the English equivalent of) the self-identifying term. A quick search of Google news, books and scholar suggests to me that while Maliseet is the more common term, Wolastoqiyik is in significant use and should be given serious consideration as the article title, with Maliseet as a redirect and a discussion of the names somewhere in the article. Certainly we do not want two articles as is currently the case. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

blatantly racist

"The growing community of Scottish-Canadian frontiersmen were likely to take First Nation wives, as there were few European women in the area."

This sentence comes across as blantantly racist. Why is the person who wrote this assuming that these frontiersmen 'only' took First Nation's wives becaues there were few European women? Is it possible that these men actually were attracted to the beauty that many of the women had, and what evidence to you have to make such a statement- it is ignorant.

It is possible that what you are saying might have some truth, but it has a tone I do not like. Can you please edit. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge

Talk pages merged, w RfM added after page histories merged. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2011 (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 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

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) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maliseet people → Maliseet –

target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on June 8 2010, original article created as "Maliseet" by Kainaw on March 30, 2004. Move was in violation of WP:UNDAB Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 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) 12:52, 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 02:36, 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 Maliseet redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:56, 22 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.

Jenniss Family

The following was placed into the body of the article: "FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORDS, the Jenniss family name has never been associated with the Original 14 Clans of Viger, listed on the 1869 list of families at Viger/Cacouna, and therefore, the Jenniss name has been permanently deleted from the family names listed above. Their family does not show up anywhere on the 1869 Viger List of Clans." Besides being phrased as a rant, the topic is already covered in the body. If there is a controversy, it needs discussion here - not in the article. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wapeyit piyel

(Pinging @Indigenous girl: as involved) Is it a proper noun? Does it identify a specific single individual (as compared a quality of an individual, such as, "wife of")? Is it a given name? Do we have a link or source that identifies the individual as being regularly called that in that way?

If it's not a name, the {{lang}} tag is appropriate. If it is, we need a reliable source citing it as such and an explanation for the non-standard form. Or, potentially, removal as it's merely an interesting factoid and non-notable. Elfabet (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wapeyit piyel was Nowell/Noel Peter Polchies' name not his wife (his wife was Elizabeth). Wapeyit piyel means White peter. I think it's best to cut the information though I did just edit it to be correct. If you had gone to Peter Lewis Paul's page you would have seen the correct information. It's not sourced however.

As an aside, please consider not asserting that every language should follow the form of English. Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that edit. It looks great now. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the arrogance of calling a people by the name another people called them.

Re Maliseet: The name is Wəlastəkwewiyik

If anything have two pages one in English and one in Wəlastəkwewiyik. Kindly don't be so damn arrogant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name move

It's been seven or eight years since the last time moving the page was discussed and use of indigenous names like Wəlastəkwewiyik is rapidly approaching the default setting in media coverage. Is it time to move this page to the term in use in New Brunswick? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be name moved to the name of consensus when reached. PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 February 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maliseet → Wolastoqiyik – "Maliseet" is becoming pretty outdated in comparison to Wolastoqiyik, which is what this nation is more known and referred as to nowadays. The French article is already titled as it, I think that we should too. B3251 (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, evidence of WP:COMMONNAME? Dank Jae 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common – Is Wolastoqiyik even in use in Maine or Québec? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the Canadian Encyclopedia, Quebec and New Brunswick governments, Dartmouth, CBC, Maine government prefer the term, demonstrates the change is becoming more common. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for compiling these together, pinging other involved editors @DankJae @G. Timothy Walton for comment. B3251 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support That seems conclusive to me. Thanks, oncamera . G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per sources gathered above. Some additional sources include the title of an academic work published in April, CBC News article which states Maliseet is historic usage and a November 2023 Toronto Star article. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.