This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
They may not be apart of the same treaty process, but they are apart of the [[Nuu-chah-nutlh]. I don't have any sources at the moment, but I will get some. I just don't know a lot of these Nuu-chah-nulth articles have that in there. OldManRivers04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the web refs from them discusses it; I don't know the background, other than old animosities between the Pacheedaht and Tseshaht (Pt Alberni), but for some reason they don't use Nuu-chah-nulth to refer to themselves, and insist on Pacheedaht. They speak the Nuu-chah-nulth language, are defeinitely "Aht" (the word in that language for a people, or rather "the people" I guess); the distinction I think was here when I first found the Nuu-chah-nulth page, and I did find corroboration for it, although for just now I can't remmeber exactly where; try the External Links here and at the other related pages.Skookum104:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar the Nitinat/Ditidaht, like the Makah, are a people apart but affiliated politically (though the Makah not as tight cross-border as the Okanagan/Colville and the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket); again both "aht" poeples - "-ah" is the Makah dialect variant I suppose, of "-aht" (shows up as "-ot" of course). Point is it's their own self-definition; the Makah share a common regional cultural and language but do not call themselves Nuu-chah-nulth; likewise so do not the Pacheedaht, although the Ditidaht are affiliated but non-mebers of the NTC. Apparently - from the http://www.Nuu-chah-nulth.org website - the term Nuu-chah-nulth-aht is inclusive, and includes the Makah and Pacheedaht, while Nuu-chah-nulth is used for the main group; "Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council" translates as "Along the Outside ("Coast") Tribal Council", while "Nuu-chah-nulth-aht" translates as ""People Along the Outside (Coast)", and is supposedly an acceptable collective term. It's similar to Sto:lo - people think that's the name of the "ethnicity" (rather than the river); I don't know the ending in Halqemeylem that you'd add to indicate "people" - -imc or -mc or -emc or -mux, -mx or just -m or -e in the various Interior languages'dialects, -mesh in yours; The Halqemeylem name - full name - of "people of the river" might work, i.e. "Sto:lo'mc e.g.; but I'll write the Kwantlens etc to ask and make sure, or do the webwork to find out anyway. A term that includes the Chehalis/Sts'Ailes might only be known to them, I guess. Anyway, off to the gym, but just some thoughts/response. AFAIK the Pacheedaht do not call themselves Nuu-chah-nulth, but can live with Nuu-chah-nulth-aht; and there are other examples elsewhere, as well as places where it would be nice to have a collective term (Gulf of Georgia/S. Island, Central Coast, and the Wet'suwet'en/Dakelh issue and the scattered, distinct, but small-in-population peoples of the Far North. Gotta go; more later maybe.Skookum104:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
