Talk:Makah

Fate of Japanese Sailors

This section is not accurate as at least one of the sailors did make it back to Japan on at least two occasions the youngest survivor went to Japan https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Otokichi. Someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing would be a better fit than I to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.74.250.10 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC) 𝙸 𝚕𝚘𝚟𝚎 𝚜𝚘 𝚖𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚍𝚊𝚍𝚍𝚢 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C600:E0F0:98BE:5014:834B:E4FA (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

I am currently doing a great deal of research on whaling in the Pacific Northwest, and I couldn't help but notice that one of the linked sites contains a major, important error.

At http://www.uoregon.edu/~mmoss/makah.htm , Makah Whaling Misunderstood, near the end, the author states that "The Makah hunt was sanctioned by the International Whaling Commission because it did not pose a threat to the survival of gray whales." The IWC never gave the Makah carte blanche, and in fact had already refused their request for a whaling quota in session. The Makah Tribe did not meet the guidelines of "aboriginal subsistence whaling." They did (and do) not have an unbroken tradition (they stopped in the 20's and didn't start again until the recent 1999 hunt), and they do not require the meat to survive ("subsistence"). Instead, the United States traded some of its Inuit bowhead quota for some of the Russian Federation's Gray quota in a "horse trading" deal not endorsed by the IWC. This is the quota the Makah have been hunting under. The person who added the link does not have an active talk page, and I'm not someone who generally does major edits (like removing an external link); I would ask the linked site to change, but it is a transcribed article. I ask that someone who knows more about procedures in these cases do something about this. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction to original post: It was not Inuit, but Yupik (Central and Western Alaskan native) bowhead quota that was traded. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 21:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the Makah hunt was not officially sanctioned by the IWC, but your interpretation of 'subsistence' as meaning 'needing meat to survive' is inaccurate. The IWC's definition of subsistence encompasses cultural, traditional, social and economic aspects as well, and these are evident features of the contemporary hunt.

woodschmoe, Mar. 7 2006. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.146.183 (talk • contribs)

Way of Life

I have edited the third paragraph, and removed the last sentence which stated that the Makah are thought to be the first people to whale (there is ample evidence from other parts of the world, in particular Korea, that whaling precedes the Makah's presence in their territories), and reworded the part which described the "technologies possessed by the Makah", as the list was far from complete, and 'technology' includes the traditional knowledge which directs the use/manufacture of a tool/process (the artifice), not simply the material component (the artifact). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.146.183 (talk • contribs)

category

hi. perhaps i am misunderstood?

i removed Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast because the entire Wakashan family is already under this category. this because is Category:Wakashan languages is under it & Makah is under Category:Wakashan languages. putting Makah under Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast is redundant. that's all. peace – ishwar  (speak) 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten into this issue in other subjects and now, as then, I will state my strong feeling that not everyone who uses this website knows how the categories work and that you can find Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast by clicking up from Wakashan languages. The more connections a user studying the subject can easily make, the better, thus regardless of your "stickler" nature about the cats, it's more helpful to keep both easily available to the general reader. Badagnani 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ok. thanks for the note. i dont have strong feelings & your way is probably better. i was just following the guidelines & making the Makah like the other members of the family. i guess you will get into this issue with others until they amend the categories explanation page (or maybe theyve already done so? i dont check that stuff). please continue making things easier for readers. peace – ishwar  (speak) 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced

This is a great article but it does not cite any sources. BJ^Talk 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here - four sources are cited in the external links section. John Broughton | Talk 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources are not cited throughout the article. BJ^Talk 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

True - not a good practice, but not unusual. However, the question at hand is the use of the {{unreferenced}} template. Template talk:Unreferenced doesn't seem to fully address this. In any case, suppose I were to change the section heading for external links to read "References". Would that rule out using this template? I ask because as I read WP:CITE - and I'd appreciate your thoughts on that as well - such a heading is to be used for the section with the sources for the article, and I'm guessing (I came late to the party on this article) that the external links are in fact the sources. John Broughton | Talk 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

This article was lacking several important historical facts and looked as if it needed a bit of rearranging, so I rewrote most of the sections in this article and added a section for Whaling and the Ozette dig. I've cited references for a few of the additions, but let me know if I missed something. I think it flows quite a bit better, but I'm sure it could still use some work. I'm particularly troubled by the whaling section as it goes into a little more detail than I would like, but it didn't seem right to pare it down. Gobonobo 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whaling treaty

I removed the line "Others maintain that just as other Americans are no longer allowed to kill whales, so the Makah should be forbidden as well." from the end of the whaling discussion; it didn't fit the portion to which it was added, and addresses a matter of opinion that is perhaps better addressed in a sub-section of the "Whaling" entry. The line doesn't flow from the text which precedes it, a discussion of the Makah treaty. These "other Americans" cannot hunt whales because they have no treaty right to do so. What they 'maintain' is irrelevant to the wording of the treaty, or the question of treaty rights. Besides, those 'other americans', the Eskimo, are active whalers. Apparently, some of these 'others' are still allowed to kill whales, rendering the line untrue, at the very least.

I don't agree with this reasoning. At the time the treaty was signed, everyone whaled (not just Native people), as it was an essential economic activity. It's a case of the times changing, creating an uncertainty because the "other Americans" don't whale anymore. Since the "other Americans" don't whale anymore, does that make the Makah follow the "other Americans"? It's similar to the right to bear arms--which hinges in its amendment on "a well regulated militia"; ordinary citizens were expected to carry their own weapons to battle when needed. That's no longer the case because the "well regulated militia" isn't made up of ordinary citizens anymore. Badagnani 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your position, and I understand what you are saying, I think you have misunderstood a couple of key things about the Makah treaty. First, the Makah, while American citizens, are also citizens of the Makah nation: the treaty has the legal standing of an international agreement, and the Makah possess specific, inherent rights as a nation. The phrase "in common with" does not indicate that so long as other americans whale, the Makah may whale: it suggests a commonality of entitlement to their treaty rights...Just as 'other americans' have specific rights, so to do the Makah, on an equal legal standing vis a vis the U.S. justice system. Yet this does not diminish/abrogate the Makah's treaty rights as a nation. "Other Americans" may well choose not to continue whaling, and this is their right. This choice does not have any impact on what the Makah are entitled to do. You and I may have common rights: should you choose not to exercise your rights, it has no bearing on the status of mine. Changing times for 'other americans' are not valid grounds for abrogating the treaty rights of a separate nation: this principle has been upheld by the courts, and is not in question. The phrase 'in common with' is the sticking point: clearly, the courts do not intepret it solely with respect to the practice of whaling, and the activities of 'other americans', but instead as a matter of common entitlement to established rights. To engage your point about the right to bear arms (briefly, as it is not really a pertinent analogy) despite your objections, the courts have routinely upheld the amendment: and with regard to treaties and rights, it is the decisions of the courts that matter, particularily with regards to the cautious approach required in encyclopedic accounts. I still maintain that the issue raised is better located as a sub-section of the "Whaling" section of Wikipedia, or perhaps those interested could create an entry on the "Makah whaling controversy", with appropriate reference to international law, and specific legal intepretations of the treaty right. And, as per mention of Eskimo whalers, the line was in fact untrue, at the very least. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.177.8 (talk • contribs)

Thank you--that was a very helpful and reasoned answer, and helps to clarify these verbal issues as they are interpreted in the law. Badagnani 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whaling rights revoked?

Hasn't the Makah right to whale been revoked? I recall hearing a while ago that it was taken away by a court ruling. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? -- Andrew Parodi 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/Whales-Dolphins-Porpoise/Gray-Whales/Makah-Whale-Hunt.cfm

The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2004 that the Makah, to pursue any treaty rights for whaling, must comply with the process prescribed in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for authorizing take of marine mammals otherwise prohibited by a moratorium. (Take means to or attempt to, harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.) On Feb. 14, 2005, NOAA Fisheries Service received a request from the Makah for a limited waiver of the MMPA’s take moratorium, including issuance of regulations and any necessary permits.

"The Northwest Region is conducting a full evaluation of the tribe’s MMPA waiver request. The first step in that evaluation is to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (see NEPA Process section). Please check our Website for updates as we continue to evaluate the Makah’s MMPA waiver request.

From http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5301

Litigation Leaves Further Hunts in Doubt

Then on June 9, 2000, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Burgess and ordered that hunts cease until a new environmental assessment was prepared. The new assessment was issued in July 2001, again approving the hunt. In 2002, the International Whatling Commission approved the Makah request to renew its quota of whales for an additional five years, and Makah whalers began to prepare for a hunt that year. As they did, some of the most ardent anti-whaling groups said they would not try to obstruct the hunt. PAWS decided not to return in part because its campaign was interpreted as a slur against treaty rights. And Sea Shepherd, leader of the anti-whaling fleet, announced it would not oppose the Makah hunt directly, although it would continue to support local opponents. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd said the Makah hunt was a distraction from efforts to oppose large-scale whaling by nations such as Japan, Norway, Iceland, and the Danish Faroe Islands.

However, whaling opponents including the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals had appealed the new environmental assessment. Judge Burgess rejected the challenges, but on December 20, 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit again reversed him, placing the hunt on hold indefinitely. The panel ruled that although the hunt would not have any significant impact on the overall gray whale population, the assessment did not adequately address possible impacts on the whale population in the local area of the northern Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The court halted the hunt until a full fledged environmental impact statement evaluating those impacts is prepared. Moreover, in a ruling seen as having sweeping implications for all Indian treaty rights, the panel announced that the hunt cannot proceed unless Makah whalers obtain a permit or exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Hunt opponents celebrated the decision. Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian said "We are elated that the court has put a stop to this illegal and inhumane whale hunt" (The Seattle Times, December 21, 2002). For their part, the Makah, other Indians, and experts in Indian law were all stunned by the ruling that the Marine Mammal Protection Act applied despite the treaty guaranteeing the Makahs’ right to hunt whales. Legal experts said that the ruling appeared to conflict with the long-standing principle that Indian treaties are the supreme law of the land and cannot be overridden by general statutes.

Expressing its concern that the panel "ruling may lead to new, draconian restrictions being imposed on tribal fishing notwithstanding the tribe's treaty rights and regardless of the actual impact of the tribal fishing on the resource" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002), the Makah tribal council announced that it would appeal the decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, and if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to its broader impacts, Makah leaders lamented the decision’s effect on the tribe’s efforts at cultural revitalization. Tribal chairman Nathan Tyler said the ruling "will hurt across the board. That day the whale was on the beach, the whole town was down there. People were happy and looking forward to getting some of that whale meat. Everybody is going to feel it here. They are not going to be happy with the decision" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002).

While the panel decision is unlikely to be the final word, the prospect of more years of litigation with an unknown outcome leaves it uncertain, as of early 2003, when or if Makah whalers will once more launch carved cedar canoes in search of gray whales, as they did for generations through the 1920s and again briefly at the turn of the twenty first century.

Character form the Unicode private use area

'Qwidiččaʔa·t' (Kwih-dich-chuh-ahtx) has unicode character F847 at the end. That displays as a question mark on my PC, and it probably should, being from the Unicode private use area. Is there another character that could be used? Could look like IPA phonetic are used to to write the Makah alphabet? 212.55.51.226 (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

More images

I've added a bunch more images by Asahel Curtis from 1910 to Commons:Category:Makah. Several are related to whaling. I suspect some of them should be used in this article. I leave it to someone else to decide which. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whaling

Don't know who added the edit to the whaling category stating that the Makah hunted Bowhead, but I've changed it to list gray whale, with a reference to the historical catch of humpback whales as well. The Makah never hunted Bowhead, and couldn't if they wanted to: Bowhead whales are not found in the northwest. It's likely that the author of the original edit was confusing the Alaskan Eskimo transfer of bowhead quota to the Makah to facilitate the harvest of gray whale. 66.51.133.246 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IWC

I have removed the edit that indicated the IWC didn't directly issue the Makah a quota. While this is true, it reads like an editorial sidebar that doesn't flow from the text, and it doesn't apply to the statement "with the support of the IWC". The IWC worked directly with the Makah to develop a management plan for their particular hunt, as well as providing oversight to ensure that the hunt conformed to the IWC's standards for a humane hunt. Neither of these instances of direct IWC support had anything to do with their quota, the Alaskans, or the Chukotkans (Russia). If there is disagreement on the removal of this, I would suggest that the individual who would seek to restore the edit include reference to this direct, official and unmediated support for the Makah hunt. I think there is some confusion between "sanction" and "support" on the part of the editor: had the line referred to IWC sanction, the clarification would make sense. But the line specifically (and intentionally)says "support" instead of "sanction", and it is evident that the IWC provided official support to the Makah, in the fashion outlined above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2008 (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. Clear consensus this is the primary topic. The move also relates to other similar recent moves where a consensus seems to be emerging that a people are generally the primary topic over their language, and as such should typically be at the base name. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Makah people → Makah – target is redirect to current title, first created/moved by JorisV on June 8 2010, then reconverted by Usyvdi to Makah people citing "redirecting to WP:Primarytopic, as per WP:TWODABS (Saudi spelling of Mecca is different))", then reverted to dab page, claiming (wrongly) that "there is no primary topic with people vs. language", then reverted to current title by Uysvdi on Aug 11, 2013, citing "redirecting to WP:Primarytopic as per WP:TWODABS, language article is but one aspect of Makah culture, language article gets only 8%-11% of the hits people article gets, has only 18% as many links to it". cf WP:UNDAB about needless dabs. Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. We have policy that the people should go at "XXX people" and the language at "XXX language", with "XXX" being a dab page, see WP:NCL. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"We" is not all of Wikipedia obviously, it's you, Kwami and Uysvdi and other NCL regulars concocting a bad guideline (which is not a "policy") that is in conflict with various others. WP:UNDAB has been ignored by all of you as has what WP:CRITERIA and WP:ETHNICGROUP have to say about this. The smugness in your suggestion for me to "try to change the guideline" in in a space dominated by the same small cabal of users, two - no three - have engaged in insults against me is beyond smug to the point of ridiculousness; an RfC may be required to change that guideline, as it's clear I'm shut out of any process involving that group of editors, who have been relentlessly contrarian and hostile to anything upsetting the applecart they carefully concocted to please themselves...and no one else. That strange apostrophe appears to have been employed to bypass redirects = surreptitious. Also, in common English these people go by "the Makah" as is also the case with the Haida, Heiltsuk and others whose move to "FOO" you have opposed; "Makah people" as your pal Uysvdi complained about Category:Squamish people means "people who are Nisga'a. You linguists should really get with the times and start talking to the rest of wikidom before conducting such rash renaming campaigns.Skookum1 (talk) 10:31, 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) 12:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

closed per your prejudice you mean, shutting down discussions you know you cannot win is par for the course is way too typical of your conduct. It was you who was disruptive by crafting a guideline behind closed doors to suit yourself, and you were imposing it widely even before it was added to NCL, without any discussions whatsoever. it's YOU who is being disruptive by trying to prevent discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You have only edited this article a handful of times, twice to tweak the IPA, then once to remove whitespace and tweak the hatnote and infobox.

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This article was moved by JorisV citing "move for disambiguation" but the Makah are the primary topic, and this never should have been disambiguated. That disambiguation was removed by Uysvdi as the resulting dab page violated WP:TWODABS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 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 Makah is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title.

User:JorisvS, there is no policy that says any such thing as articles must be at "foo people" or "foo language". There are two guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Both of those guides support the un-disambiguated terms as does a policy, Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:27, 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) 17:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a dab, in concordance with the guidelines at WP:NCL preferring explicit dabbing for language–people pairs. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

NCL is a language guideline, this is a people/group article. Even before WP:NCET came into existence, it was part of WP:NCP and people and peoples. NCL can "prefer" all it wants, but it cannot override other guidelines; whether TWODABs or PRECISION. "There used to be a dab" - well, duh, there used to be an unandisambiguated title and a hatnote before that two, which was changed without discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion and a subsequent unanimous vote in favor of explicit disambiguation of people–language pairs. "Makah" can refer to both the people and the language, which means it falls under "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles". "Makah" was made a dab page in response to this guideline. If you disagree, take it to WP:NCL to revise it. --JorisvS (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)\

A unanimous vote withing an obscure guideline page by a handful of editors does not override t he host of other guidelines and principles NCL is clearly in violation of. And yeah, sure "take it to NCL to revise it" when it's turf of the same people making NPA and AGF comments towards me on regular basis, sure, yeah, sure. No, NCL is going to RFC as is the way all of you have abused it in violation of other guidelines and as if it were HOLYWRIT. Is all you are capable of is reciting the NCL mantra over and over and over again as a way to not have to address the many and sundry points from other guidelines and wiki-principles?? Whatever....the false claim in NCL that language and people are equally primary topics is just not born out by facts, here's some viewer stats for this title to verify that:

• • • • • • "Makah people" was viewed 4020 times this month (March)
          • "Makah language" was viewed 398 times
          • "Makah", which was the original title for the people article, was viewed 240 times]

the false claims that language=people as primary topic are disprovable over and over again, yet NCL continues to say what it says, and NCL fanatics continue to pretend it's the only guideline in existence. The facts say wrong; the primary topic here is the people article, which should be titled "Makah" no matter what the club of editors who wrote NCL without reference to any other guideline say.Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For the love of all that is good, please stopping insulting people! Reread WP:NCL. It doesn't say anything about establishing disambiguation pages with two links. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Get a grip - saying "fanatic" is a matter of WP:DUCK. Groupie, high druid, whatever. Fact is that NCL is being cited as if it is all that mattered, and you are either not getting my point, or seem to be wanting to defray my point. Which is that requiring "people" is a fantasy of the NCL group and has no relation to TITLE or PRECISION or NCET; not as you are suggesting about creating TWODABs. Yes that is part of the problem, as was the two-and-a-half dab on the Mi'kmaq dab page kwami was copy-pasting and BKonrad reverted a few times; But the real problem is the vagueness and instability of "people" when applied to titles and categories - which is why we never had them on most of them in the first place. This was not a mistake and it stood for five years before Kwami and then the League of NCL started their campaign to assert that language and people are primary topics; that, too, was dispensed with early on when the people titles were recognized as being the core titles and not needing disambiguation that may be misleading at all.

Your group ignored that consensus in many ways, including reversions to archaic and offensive titles by one of you and now in a concerted bloc effort to oppose any procedure I file; and here I see word games I've seen before; changing the topic or going on the attack instead of answering to the point, or else you just didn't get my point, rather than intentionally wish to change it...but that IMO at this point would be generous considering all the tactics I have already encountered. What *I* was saying, not what you just claimed that I was saying, is that; "people" is NOT 'preferred' and it's NOT "ambiguous".... you don't want to talk about that so you changed the topic to TWODABS. I've read your guideline through and studied it; and it's clear from the view results above that the people-language pair is a fiction or a delusion or an agenda; it is ORIGINALRESEARCH and not borne out by facts or stats, and is at extreme variance with other parts of TITLE and more. It needs major overhaul and parts of it need scrapping, not reverting, including the people-language pair stuff and the false or "in error" statements about FOO people need immediate taking out as in violation of major guidelines; that you are part of Fortress NCL is very clear, and you are in the wrong. You are also in the wrong in abusing me as a way to avoid discussion on issues I raise, and now not even getting the point I am saying, nor addressing the stats above which clearly show that NCL is too irregular vs other guidelines and contains things that are just not true. It needs and RfC - and you need an ANI for harrassment. Or some remedial reading lessons so you understand what you read, whether it's my posts or all the non-NCL guidelines it is in clear violation or error concerning.

The stats above speak for themselves, you would do well to read them and discuss primary topic instead of making an editor the issue as you are doing. If NCL people want to talk about their own guideline and nothing but, and play word games and "oppose" carpet-bomb attacks as has been going on, then "fanatics" is indeed WP:DUCK. Read the stats and answer to them; or do you just not want to? Silence in response to key issues at hand is how you treat me at WP:NCET; the obvious is in front of you, you change the topic or attack the person who points it out, including abusing your admin power over me with threats of a block. Muzzle me all you want, the facts won't go away; and Wikipedia will lose a valuable contributor because of a laager of people with a particular field's POV and the abuse of "consensus" to effect their ends.....Read the stats and answer to primary topic; don't cite me NCL or shift the topic to TWODABS. The people are the primary topic, and the standalone ethnonym was stable for many years; but *I* am your primary target in response, rather than the questionable behaviour and various attacks let loose upon me. WP:DUCKS indeed......

Answer to the facts and address the points raised, stop conflating pointed language to personal attack with acute hypersensitivity to tartness you do not show to outright insults elsewhere; don't make the proponent the subject of a discussion, talk about the article, or in this case the title and the guidelines. Hypersensitivity about 'fanatics' given your own downplaying of your viciously-done and highly UNCIVIL "get a life" is just more par for the course. Did you buy that mirror yet?

Read the stats, admit that NCL is in error and needs reform, comment on primary topic here if you can somehow overturn the view stats by erudite commentary on the Makah; stop attacking me and distorting what I say. Read the stats.Skookum1 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You might care to reread WP:NCL; the current incarnation does not advocate for WP:twodabs. Makah people is an overwhelmingly the WP:primarytopic. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support. Makah people has well over 300 incoming links and is overwhelmingly the primary topic here. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

---

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:Makah/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.

Good content. Needs revision maybe, also map; this is also listed in pueblos/reservations but belongs here; language content currently not separated off and needs separate article --Skookum1 (8 May 06)

Last edited at 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Makah. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125234530/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003876011_whale09m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003876011_whale09m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph in contemporary culture

I am working on an update to this page covering the structure of their society, cultural aspects and gender roles.Jagb1997 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)