Talk:Holikachuk people

Derogatory term in bibliography

Does anyone know why this now-removed word was there to begin with? If it is part of a book title or something, it should be restored, but if not then it should be replaced with the proper names Deg Hit'an for the people and Deg Xinag for the language. -Quickmythril (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the name of the article, so it cant be removed. Actually, you shouldnt just remove this name as you have been doing as it is very prevalent in the anthropological literature. You should, of course, note that the name is dispreferred by tribal members. – ishwar  (speak) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I live in Alaska, and have been talking with different Deg Hit'an people, and the general consensus is to NOT have the word listed as an alternative name, but only that when that name is specifically searched, then they would have the used informed of the peoples' desire not to use it. It's like saying we should write (also known by the derogatory name Nigger) on the page for African American. Please do not revert my edits again without good cause. -Quickmythril (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Holikachuk is not Deg Xinag/Deg Hit'an. The two similar languages and peoples of Alaskan Athabaskans:

1) ISO 639-3 hoi : (extinct 2012) Holikachuk language (native name: Doogh Qinag) and Holikachuk people (native name: Doogh Hit’an). Holikachuk [historically: Holikachek, Holikitsak, Holiktsak, Holiaktzag, Holekachucket, Hologochaket, Holokochakat, Khoughitchate, Selo Khulishganat, Khuligishgat, Khuligichagat] (native name: Xiyighelinghdi) is village name and not pejorative / offensive.

2) ISO 639-3 ing : (formerly most common name: Ingalik) Deg Xinag language (native name: Deg Xinag) and Deg Hit'an people (native name: Deg Hit'an) --Kmoksy (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, so that discussion seems to about a now-deleted cite then?Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Turkish version (tr:Holikaçuklar) is very large and translatable (I wrote) --Kmoksy (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the expand-from-Turkish template, is there anything on German Wikipedia also? I'm finding their indigenous articles to be a lot more thorough....editors there actually work on articles instead of only changing their names as they drive by, it seems.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2014 (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 09:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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) 23:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Holikachuk people → Holikachuk – target page is three-item dab, first moved from original title "Holikachuk" by Kwami on June 8 2011 then turned into a disambiguation page by False Vacuum on Dec 16 2010; all other items than the people title they devolve from the name of this people and are secondary topics Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. As the language is actually called Doogh Qinag there is no need for "foo people" or "foo language" in either of these articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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.