Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast

message: I've been wanting to start this for articles in this reigion.  Everytime I linked Indigenous or Indigenous peoples of North America, I knew those article were too expansive, along with even Aboriginal peoples in Canada or Native Americans in the United States of America.  This article was created to give a closer look at these cultures, and also use a place to work from for all the nations listed within.  It'll be able to give outsiders, newcomers, or who ever, a better introduction to the Indigenous people in this area, considering the culture of this area is massivly different from the rest of North America, hell, all of the America's.  Well ladies and gentlemen, I have built it, let's see who comes.  OldManRivers 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Started

message: New electronic publication featuring highly technical articles on NW linguistics-  Best,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northwest Journal of Linguistics

message: I would like to add more on the Indigenous people on the West Coast of Washington.  I know the Makah are Nuu-chah-nulth and most of the Indigenous people in the Pugit Sound are Coast Salish but right now the article does have a major Canadian bias.  OldManRivers 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous nations in Washington state 

message: One of the failing of an article like this is generalization.  Cultures different a lot for some area's but still remained the same (same meat, different packaging.)  For example, the Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw cultures can be very different sometimes, most evident in the potlatching.  But the purpose of the potlatch still remains the same.  Things such as art, music and history can very a lot too.  If there is something that I took away or you disagree with on the page, let me know and I would like to discuss it.  OldManRivers 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural things 

message: I don't have time right now to add bits on the Makah, into the Nuu-cha-nulth section as a subsubsection, the Quileute (who have absorbed the surviving Chemakuans from what is now Clallam/Twana turf); the Chinooks are usually held to be the southern "pole" of the Northwest Coast cultures; not sure why the Tillamooks aren't.....but the Chinook should probably be on here....Skookum1 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this page today I thought it could really use a map and maybe I could throw one together. Reading the talk page just now, I dunno, the maps I just dug up often include the Tillamooks and then some. Examples: Central Northwest language area, Tillamook to Tlingit. North Pacific Coast Linguistic Divisions, Wiyot, Hupa, Yurok etc to Tlingit. not titled, "Athapaskans" (Wiyot, Yurok etc, I assume) to Eyak. Status of Native Language Groups, Northwest Coast, from Wappo, Pomo, Yuko, Cahto etc on the south to Alutiq, Eyak, and Tlingit on the north.
Yea I know this thread is nearly two years old. Pfly (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Good work is accomplished over time; I'm always coming across pages where someone did something within 48 hours of asking about it, assumed they had consensus, and wielded a wrecking-ball....Maps are problematic with these cultures/peoples, because languages and peoples are not the same thing; there's an illusory/transposed political unity imposed on them in many cases, and indeed it's a perspective the BC government is trying to engineer them into (there's been a proposal, since shot down, for 21 regional FN governments based on linguistic lines; but alliances of the political kind, like those between Kitkatla and Skidegate or between the Heiltsuk and Cumshewa, that are/were stronger than anything within certain linguistic groups; you're familiar with the mutual enmities of the Nuu-chah-nulth, the same is true of the Kwakwaka'wakw.  But linguistic maps tend to be teh way to go; except people make the mistake of not qualifying the date of teh map, e.g. showing the Pentlatch and Tsetsaut as still extant and/or relevant, ditto the Stuwix, and current maps of claimed territories ride over the top of the claimed territories of different branches of the same peoples, now either extinct or merged into today's "bands" (which sometimes forced two very hostile groups into the same administration); I found a map on French Wikipedia which shows the Chemakum as being Salish, a really bad gaffe (considering what the Salish did to the Chemakum....and dont' you think "Chemakum Gulf" would be good for teh waters between Port Townsend and Victoria "to commemorate their extinction by the Salish peoples who now dominate the area"); and that map shows "halkomelem" as if it were a people and not a language.  And  this page says "Thompson Salish" was a Washington group; really waht it is is that the Nlaka'pamux had hunting territories adn seasonal camps in waht is now Washington....lots of work needed on French wiki, in other words, which is why it's all the more important that English-langauge articles be accurate.  Anyway about the range I'd include the Tillamook (Nehalem), who are Salish and also had cultural connections to the PacNW peoples (which another group farther south did not), and on the north the Eyak....but in many accounts the Tahltan, Tsetsaut and definitely teh Gitxsan are included, and by default their allies the Wet'su-wet'en, who are Athapaskan but culturally influenced by the Coast.  I'd suggest that the different ranges be discussed/shown....it's very late, I just took a neocitran and might edit a few French articles before bed, but those are preliminary thoughts and it just happened I saw that (incorrect) map on French wiki the other night....my French isn't good enough to overhaul all those ar4ticles, though I can read them enough to spot the mistakes....).Skookum1 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Makah, Quileute, Chinook/Chinookan

message: Not that there's anything there worth merging, and it's pretty clear from its citations that it started out as someone's class project, but this is fairly obvious merge (going with older discussions that the international or state boundaries do not readily apply to indigenous geography).  I'm in no mood to stitch and sew the two together or I'd just merge the orphan into this one and be done with it, but launching the merge to see who bites, and wants to take on the job.Skookum1 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, looks like a class project to me.  Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support as per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion