Talk:Pend d'Oreilles

Fair use rationale for Image:L97-5.79.jpg

Image:L97-5.79.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pend d'Oreilles

I added a link to the Pend d'Oreilles (tribe), but maybe this should be a redirect instead? 76.178.179.251 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My sources agree -- Kalispel is another name for the Pend d'Oreilles. Pfly (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe helpful

http://www.angelfire.com/id/newpubs/kalispel.html. This might help. Lots42 (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

removed copyrighted text

Thought I explained in the edit summary, but it appears not. I removed a bunch of text that was directly copied from copyrighted http://www.kalispeltribe.com/history/, and a couple external links to game websites. Pfly (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Pend d'Oreilles tribe be merged into Kalispel people. These articles are about the same ethnic group. Kalispel is the more commonly used name, and the name actually used by members of the tribe. Uyvsdi (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment This is an example of the confusing ("confusual") use of "tribe" in lower-case form, mostly seen on US/NA articles, a few Canadian ones were written that way too. That there is no separate federally-recognized capital-T Tribe for the Kalispel is a good reasons to change this; this is a case where there is no endonym-only title possible because Kalispel no doubt goes to the city in Idaho Montana, something similar to the Squamish problem and, before that, the Shuswap/Lillooet/Chilcotin problem. Other than supporting this, it raises the point that "FOO tribe" in the US categories means, or is supposed to mean, a federally-recognized capital-T Tribe and makes me wonder about capitalizing those usages in the same way Squamish Nation and Cowichan Tribes are fully capitalized as proper names.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation article, which I just created. Is it possible to keep conversation on track to the proposal on hand? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Which is why I made the rest of my comments about these issues here per the general guidelines needed and why.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support shoulda been done a long time ago! Pfly (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment and soft oppose Um, Kalispell, Montana isn't in Idaho. Also Important to note that these people also live - in statistically significant numbers - on the Flathead Indian Reservation also, where Pend d'Oreilles is, I think, the federally-recognized name - and the tribal government called Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation notwithstanding. And, before we get too worked up about the name "Kalispel," I also want to point both of you to this, which, though written for school children, happens to be put out by the Montana Office of Public Instruction, and our Superintendent of OPI (an elected office) happens to be Denise Juneau, who is Native American - this document has undoubtably been reviewed by every tribe in Montana and as such is a pretty RS for names used by the branches of these tribes who live in Montana. On page 23, it reads:

"The three tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation are the Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai. Seliñ is the proper name for the Salish, who refer to themselves as Sqéliö—the People. The Salish have often been referred to as “Flatheads,” but this name is a misnomer and, in actuality, there are no Flatheads. Qæispé is the proper name for the Pend d’Oreille. The aboriginal name of the Kootenai Tribe is Kutanaxa, a name that means “licks the blood” in reference to a traditional hunting custom. The term Ktunaxa describes the Kootenai political sovereignty as a nation and all citizens who identify themselves as Kootenai. “Ksanka” refers to the name of the Ktunaxa band of the Flathead Reservation. Kasanka translates, “Standing Arrow,” which is a traditional warring technique. The tribes today are known by the contemporary title of The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. For the purposes of this document and for reader understanding, the terms Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai will be used."

All of the above for what it's worth. I'm not driven to get bogged down in this, but figured all should know. I guess my position, then, would be to merge Both articles to "Qæispé" , if I were to be consistent with my position in other articles of naming the ethnic group what THEY want to be named. Montanabw^(talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the problem with lower-casing what are capital-T terms like "FOO Tribe" in the federally-recognized/legally-constituted sense, likewise nation/First Nation and that latter term having many meanings and contexts in additions to government-names (I just changed a whole lot to their correct "Indian Band" for on one of the Nlaka'pamux templates, and moved various articles but that's a different matter); that "tribe" has that important-main-meaning in the US, is why some US side articles were moved to "FOO people" (Palus was one, before the Palus, India article was made; now Palouse people and as I recall there was an informal RM (or formal?) about what the primary meanings of Palouse was; anyways so this, again, is one of the reasons the "old consensus" of those first working collectively to organize all these was to use the endonym, if available, rather than "people" or "nation" or "tribe", for consistency; I mention Palus because as I recall they're not just on one reservation and in just one government; and the town(s) or community/ies can be many on just one reserve/reservation (Squamish Nation, Tla-O-Qui-Aht First Nations, Cowichan Tribes (one of the Kwakwaka'wakw governments style themselves as FOO Tribe btw), Seton Lake Band. Tla-O-Qui-Aht is a modern alliance though the name is old; of the three remaining groups/peoples in the Clayoquot Sound area; there had been something like eleven. Cowichan is about seven different groups; Squamish Nation has about five separate communities (or more?)....Point of all this is that "FOO" is a lot easier than the complications of "FOO people/tribe/nation" ...but when the main English language FOO is the same as something with greater primary usage, what do you do? In some cases, like Nicola people, the name is that of the founding chief; they are an alliance of the Swx'exmx (sp?) a Nlaka'pamux group, and the Spa7omin (also spelled Spahomin or Spaxomin) of the UPper Nicola area, who are also Okanagan. There's also a common view of the entire corpus of Okanagan, Colville, Sinixt, Columbia, Methow etc though not the Cayuse I think, are / were actually all one people. Simplicity is best, I meant to mention Occam's Razor, but someone brought that up in teh old consensus too, that deciding between three unnecessary and complicating terms, each with baggage, wasn't preferable to how the endonyms-in-English get used; you can say e.g. "The St'at'imc wanted" meaning either the people as a group or their official government or reps, you don't hve to say in normal usage "the St'at'imc people wanted".....unless you wanted to emphasize the people as a group vs the St'at'imc Nation tribal council government.Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I get 2 entries online that have "Qæispé"—so no, that is definitely not the common name, used by the public or the tribes themselves. The fact that the Kalispel tribes use the term "Kalispel" in their own name demonstrates its use by Kalispel people themselves. I know it's a lost cause trying to focus conversation but the proposal on hand is to combine the two articles to Kalispel people, since they are ethnic group articles, so the "tribe" question is moot, since no one is arguing in favor of using Kalispel tribe for the final article name. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

Point taken, and ""Qæispé" definitely won't Google out. I don't know if the Washington and Montana folks both agree that it is the "right" way to transcribe their name, though...hmmm. But by the "used by the public" standard, I think the Montana folks use "Pend d'Oreille" more than Kalispel, and the group does clearly have the "upper/lower" split no matter which name is used. I'm more musing than arguing; the issue is similar for the Kootenai, where WP did link everything to the "right" name... Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The most current spellings in the Salish materials used in immersion schools are "Séliš", "Qlispé", and "sqelixʷ". However, English is predominant. -- (Tachini, Pete (2010). Seliš nyoʻnuntn, Medicine for the Salish language : English to Salish translation dictionary (2nd ed.). Pablo, MT: Salish Kootenai College Press. ISBN 9781934594063.)Djembayz (talk)

It does seem like there is a Montana/Washington split. Investigating which gets used more is challenging since "Pend d'Oreilles" is used for so many geographical features. Disambiguation is a concern; at least, Kalispel only refers to the people and the language. Additionally "Pend d'Oreilles tribe" and ""Pend d'Oreille tribe" are both used. A Google Books search (I know, hardly scientific) yields 80 results for "Pend d'Oreilles tribe", 883 for "Pend d'Oreille tribe", and 2,410 for "Kalispel tribe." -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

How many of those "Pend D'Oreille(s) tribe" ones are to one of the governments i.e. as part of their name. And are the "Kalispel tribe" ones all non-government names? I'm not good at filtering google results, y'see. But this points up again, and I realize there is no real alternative other than "FOO people", the hazards of lower-casing pluralized formal terms i.e. Tribe=tribe(s).Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just occurred to me to suggest that anything in the federally-recognized tribes category be the proper org-name; fine for the category to be lower cased but e.g. Swinomish tribe and as a stand-alone, if that is a government i.e. Swinomish Tribe or Wherever that should be the title, including of any categories specific to that government, as e.g. might be the case with Colville, which is big enough to warrant such a category; a shorter version than Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation could be used in the category, perhaps as a redirect with cat attached...the vagueness of the "FOO tribe" titles has always given me pause; if it's a capital-T tribe vs an ethnic group, we need some clarity....Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

On that note, my take is that the ethnicity articles should almost always be named Foo PEOPLE, with "tribe" only used where a particular group - or the government - calls a particular governmental entity by that name. When there is ambiguity over a governing name, or where the ethnic group is spread out over multiple reservations with different names, then "nation" is probably preferred as a general guideline for the political situation of the people as a whole as distinct from their ethnicity (i.e. Lakota nation). At least, that should be the best way to avoid being too un-PC. Hence, a merge of Kalispel and Pend d'Orielles (which is of French origin and is pronounced, at least in Montana, as "Ponder-ay") might go to "Qæispé people" with separate articles for the Upper and Lower branches being named Kalispel and Pend d'Orielles (with or without the s, which ever is used by the US Government and the folks living on the Flathead Rez). Just my view. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

the "FOO people" construction just isn't practical, and as was discussed ong ago (deep in IPNA archives and on various article talkpages) "FOO" is just better, where possible; in cases like Kalispel and the Squamish/Okanagan etc it's necessary to disambiguate; the native names for the peopleS exist in Canadian English now, e.g. St'at'imc and Secwepemc and Ktunaxa are common now, whereas Skwxwu7mesh and Syilx are not. The "FOO poeple" construction, particularly on categories, is for "people who are FOO" or "people from FOO". See my comments on WP:IPNA's talkpage; adding "people" to "FOO" was totally unnecessary and there's various complications resulting from it; it was derived for African and Asian peoples.....only some US articles have the nativized and/or original forms (Nuu-chah-nulth is a modern invention though as are other terms)....and the "FOO tribe" category titles are problematic because e.g. in the Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) it's not necessarly federally-recognized tribes, which is only what should be in Category:Federally-recognized tribes in the United States......this is a tangent from his RM, but it might be worth considering re categories of that kind, that "ethno" articles should be in something like Category:Indigenous peoples in Montana etc to avoid the dual meaning of "tribe". A category name which addresses people who did not become capital-T federally recognized tribes is needed; i.e. for either extinct groups of those since absorbed by others....calling the Stuwix in BC, for example, doesn't sit well with "First Nation" which like Tribe/tribe has a dual meaning (actually several). Myself, being used to the native forms as common in Canada, though in English usually without diacriticals other than maybe an accent or the occasional colon like Sto:lo, I'd go for Quaispe (with accent) though I realize it's not (yet) in common use; in Canada it's not just common use to use such names, it's official on both sides now.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Another sign in "Salish"

• Comment and soft oppose: What Montanabw has said in above comments is basically my understanding also. I'm learning séliš, and just returned from the area. The English language names of Kalispel and Pend d'Orielles (not sure about the "s") are in use by local people. The séliš and qlispé varieties of Salish are pretty much the same for a beginner; the Spokane Salish is a little different, but still pretty close. (Colville-Okanagan Salish is definitely a different language/dialect.) Amir Aharoni helped me install the séliš font last year at Wikimania. You see it on signs on the Flathead Reservation, but written materials in the modern font are just starting to emerge. I'd suggest sticking with the English alphabet orthography and for now, and revisiting this in a couple years. Djembayz (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I could see Sélis and Qlispé becoming current in the future (probably without the [š] though....though the indigenous political momentum in the US is very different than what's going down in Canada these last couple of decades....Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week. Turns out I can't do the move myself. If anyone wants to take this to an administrator, please feel free. I am merging the two separate articles about the same group though, and trying to flesh out this article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I think this works for now, we have moved the smaller, less comprehensive article into the larger one, have both names, and (I think??) links to both reservations. Yeah, USA naming politics are not the same as Canadian ones. Always a can of worms, that... Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (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 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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. We have a solid consensus that "people" is unnecessary disambiguation, as there are no other "Pend d'Oreilles"es to distinguish it from. The move also recalls similar recent moves where a consensus appears to be developing that a people are generally the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a language of the same name, and generally should be at the base title. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Pend d'Oreilles people → Pend d'Oreilles – target moved to "Pend d'Oreilles (tribe)" by Uysvdi on March 30 2010 in contravention of WP:UNDAB, then redirected from "Pend d'Oreilles tribe" to current title also by Uysvdi on Aug 5, 2013. Pend Oreille is a dab page; the Canadian spelling of the river name is the same as that of the people but because the greater portion of the river's name is in the US, the US spelling is used for that article, that issue can be solved by a hatnote Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 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) 12:31, 20 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 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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 Pend d'Oreilles is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pend d'Oreilles/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.

only one sentence. Needs thorough expansion --Skookum1 Has been expanded a great deal since then; now includes pictures, and a fair amount of info. Still needs expansion, division into sections, and citations --Miskwito 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)