Wikipedia

Talk:Yupik peoples/Archive 1

< Talk:Yupik peoples
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 4.35.243.35 in topic Ummm... There are no Yupik people in South Central Alaska
Archive 1

Comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i'm considering getting a yupik audio language course.

i'm trying to learn everything i possibly can about the eskimos.

does anyone on here speak yupik?

Gringo300 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ee! Changachit unamik? [bitchakundedumpkin, asvitduten] Knowmoore 09:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (suktu-ya gu-chi-cuchk)

For starters try the Alaska Native Language Center, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc

Imarpik

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it correct that Imarpik is the Yupik name of the Bering sea? See Talk:Bering Sea. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why merged ???

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Eskimo peoples are Yupik peoples and Inuit peoples. The page Yupik people is mixed page! This is not true! The page Yup'ik for only Central Alaskan Yup'ik language speaking people! But, the page Yupik for Central Alaskan Yup'ik language, Naukan Yupik language, Siberian Yupik language and Alutiiq language speaking peoples: Siberian Yupik people, Alutiiq people. Would you please look The pages Yup'ik (Central Alaskan Yup'ik language speaking people) and Yupik (Eskimo languages [excluded Inuit languages] speaking peoples). Not merged, not merged, not merged!!! --Kmoksy (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've unmerged, and move the articles to more obvious names. ("Yupik" and "Yup'ik" were just too close.) I've tagged it for expert attention, since there may be WP:content fork issues. Kmoksy, depending on how comfortable you are editing English, you can either straighten this out yourself, or explain here what needs to be done so that each article covers its proper subject. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorting this article out

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article seems to move back and forth between discussing all Yupik peoples and then only the Central Alaskan Yup'ik people. Since the title is plural, it should probably be expanded and made to consistently cover all Yupik peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

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: No consensus, not moved. See also discussion at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

– See notes on Talk:Chipewyan#Requested move. Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

* Yupik peoples → Yupik * Central Alaskan Yupik people → Central Alaskan Yupik

    • withdrawn both of these because of explanations by Kmosky below

* Klickitat people → Klickitat

* Entiat tribe → Entiat

* Walla Walla people → Walla Walla

* Walla Walla → Walla Walla (disambiguation)

* Snoqualmie people → Snoqualmie

* Snohomish tribe → Snohomish

– See notes on Talk:Chipewyan#Requested move. Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Procedural oppose any swapping of a page with a disambiguation page should be requested separately, for every swap instance, a separate discussion should occur. Any displacement of a disambiguation page and replacement of its location for some other use should also occur separately for each instance. These are all different primary topic discussions. Several of the targets are disambiguation pages, so overwriting a disambiguation page is a primary topic dispute, and should each be discussed separately. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are you repeating the same post on four different pages? Main discussion should be kept on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move unless you have something to say about a particular title and its issues.Skookum1 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You've opened four different discussions. Each response is for the particular discussion it appears in. You hadn't left any notice of a combined discussion area either, until your response to me. There's only the See notes on Talk:Chipewyan#Requested move indicating that the rationale can be found at the other page. People have left these kind of notes referencing already closed discussions before, so it is not an obvious conclusion that you want a unified discussion area at that location from this page's rationale. Nor is the discussion at Talk:Chipewyan pointing to which other discussions were opened to companion it as part of the 30-page limit, and which are not part of it, but merely use that discussion's points as the rationale. (IOW, the discussion are not highly linked, so leaving a separate point at each discussion will mean the closing admin will definitely see it, as the {{discussion moved}} indication or similar has not been explicitly stated in the subsidiary nomination pages; nor even indicated at the "prime" discussion where the subsidiary nominations were located) Considering the fact that other users besides myself, have lodged opinions at several of your non-"prime" discussions, it's not very clear to several users that this is meant as a single discussion at a single location. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The limitations on bulk RMs I coped with as best I could; hundreds of articles are involved, 120 only so far have been posted, and all concern a central titling issue and what should be a convention. And you know what? You claim "several" discussions have been opened, but I've watchlisted every single item now, and do not see "several" but only the main one at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and a brief one on Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move; and your two on Yupik and Yaquina. That's all. So please stop exaggerating; I did post notices on the talkpage at WP:IPNA and at CANTALK and, yes, should have thought to be more explicit on the mention of the Chipewyan people talkpage about the other three groups of RMs and links to them, and to make you happy I will now. But complaining that *I* didn't centralize discussion when you repeated yourself on four different pages with the same post - and now making a case for decentralized discussion, is hardly "procedural". Common sense would have told you, from the link to the rationale for the group on Talk:Chipewyan people, that that would be the place for centralized discussion, but I forgot the common sense is in short supply around Wikipedia, especially on matters of procedure. The procedure that is at question here is how it was that so many articles got changed without discussion, and if the RM process weren't limited by number in such cases....it seems you just want to pick this apart procedurally without actually considering the overall issue....about a group of RMs which need to be addressed collectively......applying separate guidelines to over a hundred similar-topic articles is not workable; especially when the convention/guideline used to change them doesn't even exist except in the claims of the perpetrator.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Re this "People have left these kind of notes referencing already closed discussions before" and then proceeded to attack me with "so it is not an obvious conclusion that you want a unified discussion area at that location from this page's rationale" as if I wanted a decentralized discussion, which is absurd. The closed discussions of relevance to this matter are at Talk:Dakelh#Requested move (the most recent), Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move, Talk:Tsilhqot'in#Requested move, Talk:Secwepemc#Requested move, Talk:Nlaka'pamux#Requested move and Talk:Ktunaxa#Requested move. Open ones are at Talk:Sechelt people#Requested move, Talk:Owekeeno people#Requested move and Talk:Okanagan people#Requested move. Of the closed ones, all went to the standalone "FOO" form, by the way.Skookum1 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to any moves of any of these aboriginal North American articles at all. This happens all over the place, like with album articles, which is the ones I most recently encountered. I can't see why you construed that as an attack. And since two of the other discussions have garnered opinions from people other than myself, I would say it is "several". That people keep posting to more than one of the open discussions after my "procedural oppose"s were lodged indicates that it is not clear where you wanted the discussion to occur. If it were clear where you wanted the unified discussion, there wouldn't be any opinions posted except my procedural opposes. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You have seen by now, I hope, the addition to the comments, at the top of the comments on each of the ancillary pages (here, Yaquina, Cayuga) that the discussion should be centralized on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. And these are not album articles, these are indigenous peoples articles, many of them main articles for categories, and in their current state have a history of being moved, without any consultation or procedure whatsoever by mostly one editor, after he re-authored a guideline to suit himself, without reference to any other guideline of importance; including the naming conventions on indigenous peoples and tribes, and WP:TWODABS; with a few others following suit (see my annotations on the Chipewyan list, which I'll do here shortly, tracing the history of the article name and various redirects and dab creations, all with no reference to PRIMARYTOPIC other than once or twice returning a dab page to a redirect to the ethno article in question. And yes, I'm used to being attacked by these people, at the same time as they complain about me attacking them (for criticizing their actions and the results, not engaging in personal attacks of WP:BAITing as happens to be the case). Remember, various guidelines of importance apply here, and should be considered here, which have nothing at all to do with the guidelines concerning album titles.Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "Yupik peoples → Yupik" is "moveable", but "Central Alaskan Yupik people → Central Alaskan Yupik" is "not moveable". Because, common usage in Alaska: the Yup'ik (with apostrophe = pronunciation: Yuppik) for Central Alaskan Yup'ik people and language (also Yup'iks of Chevak town are Cup'ik [pronunciation: Chuppik] and Yup'iks of Nunivak island are Cup'ig [pronunciation: Chuppig]). the Yupik (not apostrophe = pronunciation: Yupik) for Siberian Yupik people and language on St. Lawrence Island. --Kmoksy (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yupik peoples = non-Inuit Eskimos = Siberian Yupik people (Alaska & Russia) + Yup'ik people (of central Alaska, incl. Cup'ik & Cup'ig) + Alutiiq ~ Sugpiaq people of southern Alaska (Kodiak & Chugach).
Inuit peoples = non-Yupik Eskimos = Inupiat people (of northern Alaska) + Inuit people (Eastern & Western Canadian) + Greenlandic people. --Kmoksy (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Inuit should be disambiguated with "people"? We have other kinds of "Eskimos" in Canada, e.g. the Inuvaliut. So far as I know both those groups self-identify as being the-whole-as-one. Not, as many Canadians already know, and I'm sure you do too, that 'Inuit" is already a plural, as is "Inuvaliut". And re Inuit language, a title created to replace Inuktitut, this was done against MOSTCOMMON as "Inuktitut" has been an established and regular term within Canadian English for decades now. I note also there is a category Category:Eskimos which is of dubious utility given the derogatory sense of that name and exoynmic origin of that name as perceived by the Inuit et al. (at least in Canada) per the naming convention on indigenous peoples and tribes: ""How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." I'm grateful for the clarification re Yupik/Yup'ik however. I had no idea that the Koniag (as that article was originally, or at least temporarily, titled) and Chugach were Eskimos/Yupik, you learn something new every day (I wish more people around here would). I guess I thought they were Athapaskans...Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Turns out that Inuit language is a redirect to Inuit languages, plural, and Inuktitut is there; but MOSTCOMMON for "Inuit language" in Canada would definitely be Inuktitut, so that redirect seems wrong to me....on and that's only about Eastern Inuktitut, the Inuvialuktun title was redirected by Kwami (gee, huh?) on January 1, 2011...but the phrase "Inuvialuk language" is a wiki-coinage, and the term "Inuvialuktun" also well-established in Canadian English, especially of late as the distinctions between it and Inuktitut became more well-known to southern Canadians (thanks to the CBC and the Aboriginal People's Television Network, in no small part). Such artificial coinages are where the "FOO people" coinage came from, even though "FOO" is the MOSTCOMMON way almost all these terms are used. And gee, wouldncha know Inuvialuit was moved to Inuvialuk people on the same date (really implying "individuals who are Inuvailuk"), citing his self-authored change to WP:NCLANG....Inuvialuit is what is MOSTCOMMON in Canadian Engish, if "Inuvaliuk" IS heard it would be in reference to an individuals, and a reference to the people as a whole would invariably in "Inuvialuit" in English.....on New Years Day, I remember him doing scads of these while everyone else was not around Wikipedia. When will the madness stop??Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised he didn't to the same to Inuit by making it Inuk people. Relieved is more like it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the "procedural opposition" about the bulk RM it looks like I may better file separate RMs on the above-named articles, likewise on Slavey people/Slavey language and others, as it's not just "people" articles that have been bulldozed (without any procedure) to archaic/in disfavour terms by that editor's activities.Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The page Yupik (with people or people-less simply) for all Yupik branch of Eskimos, but Yup'ik (with people or people-less simply) for only Central Alaskan Yup'ik (the apostrophed usage for only this people and language and most common in Alaska). In fact, Central Alaskan Yup'ik [people / language] → Yup'ik [people / language]. The Inuit people (of Canada) = Eastern Canadian Inuit (= Inuvialuk or Inuvialuit, Inuvialuktun-speaking Inuit) + Western Canadian Inuit (= Inuit proper or Inuktitut-speaking Inuit). Alutiiq ~ Sugpiaq (Aleutized Yupiks of southern Alaska) are two main groups: the Western group are Koniag Alutiiq (more) or Koniag Sugpiaq (less) of Kodiak Island and the Eastern group are Chugach Sugpiaq (more) or Chugach Alutiiq (less) of the Kenai Peninsula and Prince William Sound. Chugach are not Athabaskan. Also, Eyak Indians are not Athabaskan and not Eskimo or not Aleut (U.S. Census Bureau: Chugach and Eyak are "Aleut"!). Soon, I'll write Tanana Athabaskans new page. --Kmoksy (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Just by homonomy and the usual way that native names often get adapted into English, I'd thought that the De'naina (sp?) already had an article. Or are the Tanana Athapaskans. NB how they refer to themselves is of relevance to the title of a Tanana Athapaskans article...how do they refer to themselves (cf WP:ETHNICGROUPS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, just found out there's a Tanaina Athabaskans redirect.Skookum1 (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
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.

"Hieroglyphics"?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The Alaskan Yupik and Inupiat are the only Northern indigenous peoples to have developed their own system of hieroglyphics, but this system that died with its creators.[11]"

The cited source doesn't support either of those statements, it tells a very different story. What gives? -- 213.148.146.130 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yupik peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... There are no Yupik people in South Central Alaska

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unless they moved there recently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.243.35 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yupik_peoples/Archive_1&oldid=928259482"