Talk:Southern Tutchone

	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.

Canada: Yukon Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CamJane.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (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 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. As with other similar moves recently, we seem to have an emerging consensus that the people are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be at the base name. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Tutchone people → Southern Tutchone – title is redirect to current title created by Kmosky on May 25, 2011. Note comments re language on Talk:Northern Tutchone people#Requested move which is paralle to this one. Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 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) 12:40, 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 02:39, 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 Southern Tutchone is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:34, 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) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (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.

Placed a new move request above after merging the articles. (The people are the Tutchone. North and South is a linguistic distinction, not an ethnic one.) — kwami (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, although Skookum originally requested the move away from "people", he is now opposing it.[1] (I had requested that deletion to make this move easier. Just noting it here so that when he claims I'm opposing the move, it will be evident that he's got things backwards.) — kwami (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always make up interpretations of what other people intend to suit yourself? Why yes, you do all the time, don't you? Both these should stay at Southern Tutchone and Northern Tutchone per in-Yukon usage /self-identification. Your lack of on-the-ground knowledge of peoples you know nothing about other than from obsolete linguistics texts is very very tiresome, as is your habit of fielding nuisance arguments and claiming people (and guidelines) say things other than what they do say.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent moves

The recent series of undiscussed moves and merges at these related articles has created a convoluted edit history that left talk pages in the wrong titles and redirects pointing to the wrong articles. I've restored the articles to their locations as of the most recent RMs (Southern Tutchone, Northern Tutchone, and Tutchone language), and created a temporary disambiguation page at Tutchone.
The moves seem to be motivated by the argument that "Southern Tutchone" and "Northern Tutchone" typically refer to the dialects rather than the peoples. This may be true, but I've found at least two sources that do use "Southern Tutchone" and "Northern Tutchone" for the peoples, the Encyclopedia of the Arctic by Mark Nuttall [2] and Ruppert and Bernet's Our Voices: Native Stories of Alaska and the Yukon,[3][4] and there are entities called the Northern Tutchone Tribal Council and the Southern Tutchone Tribal Council. In any event I doubt we really want "Tutchone" to be a disambiguation page with no article on the "Tutchone".
I could see several options working out for us. 1) a variety of the current arrangement, with separate articles for the Northern and Southern Tutchone, an article on the Tutchone language, and a new WP:CONCEPTDAB article at Tutchone. 2). If "Northern/Southern" typically refer to the peoples, we could still merge both into an article on the Tutchone, with another on the Tutchone language, and the titles "Northern Tutchone" and "Southern Tutchone" redirecting to "Tutchone". 3). If "Northern/Southern" typically refer to the languages, we could go with the previous editors' arrangement and have one article on the Tutchone and another on Tutchone language, with "Northern Tutchone" and "Southern Tutchone" redirecting to "Tutchone language". In any case, we need to make sure the talk pages and redirects match the correct articles, and we need to hammer out the issues through discussion so that the text of each article compliments the others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic distinctions are frequently reified. For example, people often talk about "Indo-European people" as if there were something other than peoples who happened to speak Indo-European languages, and if linguists discovered that they'd made a mistake and the Celtic languages were not Indo-European after all, they would stop being considered an Indo-European people, though nothing of their ethnicity would have changed. If this is a native distinction, it's odd that they don't have separate names. Usually we have the opposite problem. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are native distinctions (beyond linguistics) or not, but it does appear that any number of sources use "Northern Tutchone" and "Southern Tutchone" to refer to people. It seems a commonly cited source is Catharine McClellan's "Tutchone" from the Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 6, "Subarctic"). This describes them both together as "Tutchone". Again, I think you're definitely right that we want a solid article on the Tutchone. We just need to decide whether we want separate articles on "Northern" & "Southern Tutchone" as well, or whether they should be merged to the main article, and if so, whether the "Northern" & "Southern" titles should redirect to the main article or to Tutchone language. Whatever we decide, I'm happy to make sure the talk pages are in the right places and the redirects are pointed where they need to be.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works, but would like to say something. My name is Khâsha, my mother is Tthʼiowa from the Shadhala area. Shadhala is considered a ʼsouthern tutchoneʼ community. I, like my mother follow the crow moiety. There is indeed a difference between the ʼsouthern tutchoneʼ and ʼnorthern tutchoneʼ peoples. We live in different communities and our languages may have similiarities but we are indeed different peoples. To be truthful the term ʼsouthern tutchoneʼ is not even one i am comfortable with for it is not one our old ones would ever have used to self identify as. In our language our people would probably say where they grew up, where they were raised, as an identifier. This is what I have been taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.194.27 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Southern Tutchone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs thorough expansion (language article is Tutchone language) --Skookum1 (9 May 06)

Last edited at 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 06:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)