Talk:Haida people

background

Erm... why delete so much background data? It's so vague now... Ingoman 11:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the edit you're referring to... heqs 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Better map needed

The full-continent map doesn't really give an idea of where Haida Gwaii is, because the red coloration is such a small bit of the map; wouldn't a PacNW map do better?Skookum1 05:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

More info re: Spiritul beliefs of the Haidas, esp. as it relates to nature, would be nice.

You mean the Haida weren't distributed as far south as Mexico? Damn. There goes my claim to be descended from Moctezuma. ;]

Or, I could add the Haida are said to be "the most advanced hunter-gatherers ever". I'm N clear what "advanced" was supposed to mean (or, in fact, just where I heard it...), but if it can be subsantiated, it'd be kinda interesting, N? Trekphiler 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to subsantiate (sic) anything......but I was wonder if you could define the use of "ever" in the context you've used it in.

BTW I'm Norwegian. I'll challenge your Haida claim to be "the most advanced hunter-gatherers ever"; once we define "most advanced", "hunter-gatherer", and "ever" it should be a breeze. Yeah, we were hunter-gatherers too, doncha know? Wasn't everybody?Skookum1 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We left the ages of Aryan supremacism for the, admitedly slightly more pathetic, ages of Minority supremacism :)

An interesting observation; history being rewritten so as to pretend to reverse it is in the same league. But if you were making a connection Norwegian<->Aryan supremacy, the Norwegians were "an oppressed minority" within Scandinavia under Swedish and Danish overlordship, and in North America Norwegian immigrants were treated and regarded "worse than the Irish". Visible minorities like to think that only they were discriminated against; it's far from true. Now apparently there's "most advanced hunter-gatherers ever" as if being a hunter-gatherer were a pissing contest that could be rated.....it's funny too, as the most efficient hunter-gatherers in the world: I thought that was the bargain-hunting housewives at Wal-Mart....Further, tribal society in Europe before the Conversion was pretty much the same kind of thing as in BC/the Pacific Northwest. That's lost on indigenous people here, and also lost on (most of) the descendants of the European tribes (Nordic, Celtic, Slavic, whomever). We didn't pick on North American indigenous people for cultural genocide; we'd already done it to our own people, and were also doing it at the time. BTW someone didn't like your comment so much taht they saw fit to delete this whole section; another case-in-point of the pathetic nature of "minority supremacism". Rather than win an argument the trick is to overwrite it, or pretend it never happened....this is going on with the current campaign to pretend "Salish Sea" is "traditional" and other concocted bits of regional history/identity. It doesn't surprise me that similar bumpf is being generated about the Haida, or any other group (anothe claim in the same field is that Indigenous people were/are "more spiritual" than others, as if genetically hard-wired for it....)Skookum1 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Haida article vs Council of Haida Nation article

I'm responding to the merge request/proposal. I oppose the merger, although there's work to be done to define and delineate the appropriate content for the two articles; what seems to have been evolving across the board is a tripartite breakdown; people/culture, nation/community/government, language/culture. I haven't really looked around the Lower 48 tribes' wikipages to see how they're laid out, just going by what I've noticed in BC and WA, where there's also already been some overlap and needs to be some parameters set out as to what's in which article. Tsilhqot'in, for example, is about the people, Chilcotin language is about the language, Chilcotin is a disambig including non-First Nations usages (e.g. the region by that name) as well as the chilcotin national council or whatever they call themselves. So I think in the case of the Haida a distinction should be made between the Haida page, which should be about culture, history etc, Council of the Haida Nation for the government, Haida language for the language (prob. not written up yet so that should come out as a redlink); Kwakiutl needs a similar delineation (as Kwakawka'wakw actually refers to one of THREE Kwakiutl-culture political organizations, not simply to Kwak'wala speakers). Dropped by to add the Bringhurst cite, if it's not here already, and left my two bits.Skookum1 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to my opposition-to-merge above, I've been working on the lists of nations/groups/tribes and languages/culture and pueblos/reservations/communities, and am certain now that this article needs to be the separate language/culture article and the Council of the Haida Nation article should be the groups/nations; and I should also ask what people's opinions on separating culture/people from governments articles; e.g. with St'at'imc there's a distinction between Lillooet Tribal Council, N'quat'qua and In-SHUCK-ch Nation, which are all St'at'imc by culture and St'at'imcets by language but have separate governments and (now) consider themselves separate peoples/nations despite cultural and family links. In the case of the Haida this isn't so much of an issue, although I gather there's a separate political organization/identity among Alaska's Kaigani Haida. Anyway, there always needs to be a separate language article; how "culture" is to be split between that and the nations/groups articles I'm still not sure; language articles so far tend to be raw linguistics and need more lay examples/orientation anyway.Skookum1 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-neutral content

Several statements in this article contain bias. For example: "As the islands were Christianized, many cultural works such as totem posts were destroyed or taken to museums around the world. This significantly undermined Haida self-knowledge and further diminished morale." Back up opinion statements like these with credible citations, or remove them entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehodgson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tribes and Bands

Did any Canadian contribute to the original authoring of this article???

As a Canadian, it is my understanding that the word "tribe" is not used to refer to the Haida or any other First Nations people in Canada. Canada's Indian Act, R.S.C., c. I-6, s. 1. uses the word "band" to mean a First Nations group and the word "council of the band" to represent the local indigenious authority entity. If you watch any Canadian news channel, the word "band" is always used when referring to a First Nations group. Therefore I made a change in the beginning of the article and a change to the subheading "Tribal Government". This is just an important terminology issue that I like to bring up. I am sure that American wikipedians already know that Canadians use the word "Indian reserve" to mean what Americans call "Indian reservation". Furthermore, the word "First Nations" is used in Canada to mean only the full-blooded native Indians while the word "Aboriginal" is an umbrella term that Canadians use for native Indians, the mixed-blood Metis, and the Inuit (or Native Alaskans in American parlance).

I also added some important Canadian legal cases involving the Haida or one that affects the Haida in Canada.User: Alf74 11:42, June 03, 2006 (UTC)

The "tribal" wording does get used, depending on the body/organization involved; although generally you won't see "tribe"; e.g. the police force of the Lillooet Nation (Lillooet Tribal Council = St'at'imc Nation) is the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police; but I can't think of any other "tribal" uses within that particular organization. It's all in the usage; ditto with "Indian", as in the Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, which is one of the three Nlaka'pamux groupings (the others being Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council and the Nicola Valley Tribal Council).Skookum1 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) PS a Tribal Council tends to be, or invariably is, a group of bands, e.g. Cariboo Tribal Council, Nicola Valley Tribal Council, Lillooet Tribal Council; but each band does not refer to itself as a "tribe", nor is "tribe" used as a noun/descriptor for the "nation" (uxwuimixw, ucwalmicw in Squamish and Lillooet repsectively), i.e. t the ethnos.Skookum1 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

haida exploration

the article states "one account raises a reasonable possibility that Asia was even visited by Haidas before Europeans entered the Pacific." i would like to see a cite for this, if possible. Substatique 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's either in Barbeau or Levi-Strauss; concerning a Japanese court record describing a visit by people, like the Ainu but not the Ainu, who came from the direction of the Kuriles/Aleutians; there are no engravings/drawings to go with the report, unfortunately. It may have been Eyak or Tlingit that were involved; somehow whichever author/anthropologist it was thought for some reason it was the Haida. Also the grave-finds of Oriental coins and even a garuda-style buddha in the Skeena could simply only be tribe-to-tribe trade, but other alternatives include "souvenirs" brought back from travel, or even something to do with the Buddhist missionary expedition to "Fusang" commissioned by the Chinese Emperor back in the 7th C. And further there's the possibility of scavenging from shipwrecks from Asian shores, which were not unknown and figure in various legendary lore up and down the Coast, as well as in fur trade/colonial-era (see Talk:Chinook for one such legend), so where such gravegoods came from is anybody's guess (in Barbeau's take on it, the resemblance of local "dirges" (adaox in Gitksan) to Mongolian Buddhist Chants was too similar to be dismissed). Jack London also writes - in his fictions - about northern natives who journey across to Asia, independent of the white man's world, and return, and describes a local native attitude that that contact had already been there (it's worth remembering that the Inuit are, for example, newcomers to the continent, and according to Barbeau so are the Eagle and Wolf Clans of the Haida and Tlinkit, although I'm sure the Haida and Tlinkit have something different to say about that, and of course Barbeau's very outdated).Skookum1 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two other Haida-travel stories I've heard: one was I think was about the Haida and was told by a Wasco woman I met at a Chinook Jargon conference nearly a decade ago; she told a story about fair-skinned people with beards who came up the Columbia in huge boats to where the Wasco lived (then near the forks of the Columbia and Snake) and taught them sealing and other things, maybe the knowledge of iron. I remarked on this because of Frank Ney's eccentric theories that the Norse made it all the way through a then-ice-free Northwest Passage and made contact with the Pacific Northwest Coast, which is of course pretty silly. In immediate afterthought it occurred to me that these must have been and could only have been the Haida, who alone among aboriginal peoples in the region have facial hair and were also light-skinned; so much so that when the first Spanish ships contacted them the logs record that they were fairer than the crew (who were admittedly maybe Mexican mestizo); and of course who had huge sea-going canoes of a kind no longer extant (Lootaas, a modern reconstruction of the classic split-tree, steam-moulded giant cedar canoe, designed and supervised by Bill Reid, is a subcompact by comparison).Skookum1 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The other story is one I've heard more than once but never seen properly documented; first heard from my Grade 11/12 high school history or geography teacher c.1971, that an alliance of Haida and Kwakiutl, or Haida and Nootka, attacked Hawaii, and it was this external threat that galvanized Kamehameha I to be able to unify the archipelago (!). How they even found Hawaii is beyond me, although maybe this was after Cook's visit, which clued the Northwest Coast off that Hawaii even existed. There are apocrypal/voodoo histories that try to tie the Northwest Coast, and the Kwakiutl in particular, into Polynesian cultures - largely because of the superficial resemblance of the art styles and house decorations - but no firm links between the South Seas and the Northwest Coast are known to exist prior to European contact with both areas (which was not incidentally around the same time, as was the nature of marine exploration/voyaging). Resemblances to the Ainu are harder to dismiss, including a similar clan system and the prominence given to bears in the culture.Skookum1 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Language classification

It seems to me that Haida does have a classification, at least as according to the corresponding article Haida language. Since I don't have a source for that, or as to why it says in the Haida article that the language is unclassifyable as yet, what edit should be made? --Pyry 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

the article in question says "Formerly linked to the Na-Dené languages", meaning a link was thought to exist but the consensus is "nope, it's an isolate". Maybe Haida language could be better-worded to make that clearer. Unless there's something further down the Haida language article that you're meaning?Skookum1 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Haida.I was Born and raised here on Haida Gwaii.I am 21 years old. I will define what 'wasco' means. Wasco is a Sea Monster. I am very proud of my Haida Culture and am very egotistical in that matter. To some people a very showy person of pride is such an offence. I don't intend to come across as boistful, but it seems I do. In my opinion we try to do all we can for our small culture. So much as to recover human remains from a museum all the way from Chicago U.S.A, which were ' taken from the barrial-grounds on Haida Gwaii.'(on video-Stolen Spirits Of Haida Gwaii). We are still on the fight to keep our Haida Language alive. Elders in our communities are on the raise against time to teach all they can until their time is up. Our great ancestors have done alot for our culture. I stick to the history I know. Unfortunately, we didn't conquer. We cannot change history, but if you know any history or anything to help clarify anything on this page, don't be afraid to put it out there. Say it. Thank you

Hello Haida guy! Welcome to wikipedia. I'm OldManRivers. I'm Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw. I wanted to welcome you to wikipedia for many reasons, but we definitely lack in indigenous contributors and can greatly lack. I personally know very little about the Haida people and Haida culture. And of course, individuals who have a vested interest and care about their culture and want it represented as best as it can be, are always need and should be encouraged. So I highly recommend you join and create your own username and help make articles about your people better. You can contact me here. I can answer any wikipedia questions, or anything, and if not I know a few people who can help. I know I've been wanting to help the Haida article, but would greatly welcome any help. Hope you join and help around! OldManRivers (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rework

In a move to simplify work on articles, and easier to read, I've helped categorizes some of the pages on Indigenous, I added sub-sections and what not. I didn't delete any of the wording present on the article already, just moved it. If you want to help rewrite and add to, thanks.OldManRivers 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, the article could use some reorganization. For example, the sea battles and stone rings that were used show up in both the first and fifth paragraphs. It would probably be better to either have sea battles briefly mentioned in the first paragraph and then place all of the details within one sub section. That is just one suggestion though - I simply don't feel knowledgeable enough on the topic to do the edit myself.

In regards to the calendar, that looks a lot like the 13 month lunar calendar that was used by many cultures. How does it differ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I think photographs would make this article look much better. OldManRivers 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some questionable content

"Haidas were traditionally known as the naked fierce warriors and slave-traders… It's been said that the war helmets that were carved were by using special techniques. These techniques are unknown to anyone other than the Haida people as they have kept it secret for many years. Even to this day no one really knows how the Haida would carve their war helmets and how they looked." All uncited. - Jmabel | Talk 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that's citable, though not sure at all where....the Haida and other peoples in the region did have armour, sort of a cuirass made of elk hide, which has a certain name in the trade argot (not a Chinook word, though, or not considered to be usually); they had helmets too but I've never heard about special designs, I've always thought more in terms of battle-masks. Armour and maybe helmets are mentioned in very early fur trade/vessel logs/journals....Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sealion hide i believeInforlife (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Language classification issue

Their ancestral language is the Haida language, which has never been adequately classified by linguists because of its uniqueness.

If I'm not mistaken in the last month or two a linguistics researcher has finally pinned down connections between a Siberian language and the once-theoretical Na-Dene group, and part of the proof involved Haida as well as Tlingit and their Athabaskan neighbours; I don't know too much more, only that I heard it on CBC-Radio, normally a reliable source; I'll leave it to an ethnography/linguistics person to make the call and find the cite, though....Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

According to a passage on the Encyclopedia Britannica on British Columbia, the Haida was theorized to have some Polynesian ancestry and this is a far-fetched idea about the Haida's origin is the Pacific islands (Hawaii?) other than their homeland the Queen Charlotte islands. All this talk and speculation on the Haida have connections with Siberia and Asia (probably to Japan) is an enigma in itself, and the legacy of ancient Chinese travels to North America and Kanaka contract laborers adjoined the Haida people, are other theories about the linguistic similarity of Haida with Siberian peoples and the Chinese languages. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An Hawaiian version of the story is that they came from Haida Gwaii and meet and mixed with Polynesians, who arrived later, with regular trade voyages back and forth to Haida Gwai'i and Hawai'i. There are still families in Hawaii today who claim descent from Haida people.43.245.218.13 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Haida villages

This seems like a good idea, especially because of hte multiple names for the villages and th need to index their locations etc. On canadiangenaology.net I found [http://www.canadiangenealogy.net/indians/haida_indians.htm the most complete listing of villages I've seen so far; from Swanton maybe: here's the list for refernce purposes:

• Chaahl, on the northwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Cumshewa, at the north entrance of Cumshewa Inlet, Moresby Island.
• Dadens, on the south coast of North Island, fronting Parry Passage.
• Gahlinskun, on the east coast of Graham Island, north of Cape Ball.
• Haena, on the east end of Maude Island, Skidegate Inlet.
• Hlielung, on the right bank of Hi-ellen River, at its mouth, Graham Island.
• Howkan, on Long Island, Alaska, facing Dall Island.
• Kaisun, on the northwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Kasaan, on Skowl Arm of Kasaan Bay, east coast of Prince of Wales Island.
• Kayung, on the east side of Masset Inlet just above Masset.
• Kiusta, on the northwest coast of Graham Island, opposite North Island.
• Klinkwan, on Cordova Bay, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska.
• Kloo, at the east end of Tanoo Island.
• Kung, at the mouth of Naden Harbor, Graham Island.
• Kweundlas, on the west coast of Long Island, Alaska.
• Masset, on the east coast of Masset Inlet near its entrance.
• Naikun, Rose Spit or Nekoon, at the northeast angle of Graham Island.
• Ninstints, on Anthony Island at the south end of Moresby Island.
• Skedans, on a point of land which extends into Hecate Strait from the east end of Louise Island.
• Skidegate, on the north shore of Skidegate Inlet near its entrance.
• Sukkwan, on Cordova Bay, Alaska.
• Tiun or Tigun, on the west coast of Graham Island south of Point Lewis.
• Yaku, on the northwest coast of Graham Island opposite North Island.
• Yan, on the west side of Masset Inlet near its mouth.

Small towns and camps so far as known are as follows:

• Aiodjus, on the west side of Masset Inlet at its mouth.
• Atana, on House or Atana Island off the east coast of Moresby Island.
• Atanus, on the northeast coast of Hippa Island.
• Chaahl, on the east coast of North Island.
• Chatchini, near Kasaan, Prince of Wales Island.
• Chets, on an island at the mouth of Tsooskahli, Masset Inlet.
• Chuga, near Houston Stewart Channel and the town of Ninstints.
• Chukeu, on the southwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Dadjingits, on the north shore of Bearskin Bay, Skidegate Inlet.
• Dahua, north of Lawn Hill at the mouth of Skidegate Inlet.
• Daiyu, on Shingle Bay, east of Welcome Point, Moresby Island.
• Djigogiga, legendary town on Copper Bay, Moresby Island.
• Djigua, legendary town on the north shore of Cumshewa Inlet.
• Djihuagits, on a creek just south of Rose Spit, Graham Island.
• Edjao, around Edjao Hill at the east end of Masset Village.
• Gachigundae, on the northeast shore of Alliford Bay, Moresby Island.
• Gado, two towns:
  • (1) traditional, on the south side of De la Beche Inlet, Moresby Island;
  • (2), on the east side of Lyell Island.
• Gaedi, on the northeast shore of a small inlet just northeast of Houston Inlet.
• Gaesigusket, on Murchison Island at a point opposite Hot Springs Island.
• Gaiagunkun, legendary, near Hot Springs Island.
• Gaodjaos, on the south shore of Lina Island, Bearskin Bay.
• Gasins, on the northwest shore of Lina Island, Bearskin Bay.
• Gatgainans, on Hippa Island.
• Gitinkalana, on the north shore of Masset Inlet where it expands into the inner bay.
• Guhlga, legendary, on the north shore of Skidegate Inlet one mile above Skidgate Village.
• Gulhlgildjing, on the south shore of Alliford Bay, Moresby Island.
• Gwaeskun, at Gwaeskun, the northernmost point on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
• Hagi, on or near the largest of the Bolkus Islands.
• Heudao, on the east side of Gull Point, Prevost Island.
• Hlagi, on an island near the east end of Houston Stewart Channel.
• Hlakeguns, on Yagun River at the Head of Masset Inlet.
• Hlgadun, on Moresby Island facing Anthony Island.
• Hlgaedlin, on the south side of Tanoo Island.
• Hlgahet, near Skidegate.
• Hlgai, at the head of Skedans Bay.
• Hlgaiha, north of Dead Tree Point at the entrance of Skidegate Inlet.
• Hlgaiu, south of Dead Tree Point at the entrance of Skidegate Inlet.
• Hlgihla-ala, north of Cape Ball, on the east shore of Graham Island.
• Hlkia, on the outer side of Lyell Island.
• Hluln, in Naden Harbor.
• Hotao, legendary, on the southwest coast of Maude Island.
• Hotdjohoas, on Lyell Island near the north end of Darwin Sound.
• Hoyagundla, on a stream of the same name a short distance south of Cape Fife.
• Huados, near Hlgihla-ala, north of Cape Ball.
• Kadadjans, on the northwest end of Anthony Island.
• Kadusgo, at the mouth of a creek of the same name on Louise Island, flowing into Cumshewa Inlet from the south.
• Kae, on Skotsgai Bay above Skidegate.
• Kaidju, on Hewlett Bay, east coast of Moresby Island.
• Kaidjudal, on Moresby Island opposite Hot Springs Island.
• Kaigani, at the southeast end of Dall Island, Alaska.
• Kasta, legendary, on Copper Bay, Moresby Island.
• Katana, on Louise Island.
• Kesa, on the west coast of Graham Island.
• Ket, on Burnaby Strait, Moresby Island.
• Kil, on Shingle Bay, Skidegate Inlet.
• Koagoagit, on the north shore of Bearskin Bay.
• Koga, on McKay Harbor, Cumshewa Inlet.
• Kogalskun, on Masset Inlet.
• Kostunhana, a short distance east of Skidegate.
• Kundji, 2 towns:
  • (1) legendary, on the south shore of Copper Bay, Moresby Island;
  • (2), on the west side of Prevost Island.
• Kungga, on the south shore of Dog Island.
• Kungielung, on the west side of the entrance to Masset Inlet.
• Kunhalas, just inside of Cumshewa Inlet.
• Kunkia, on the north coast of North Island.
• Kuulana, in Naden Harbor.
• Lanadagunga, south of Tangle Cove, Moresby Island.
• Lanagahlkehoda, on a small island opposite, Kaisun, Moresby Island.
• Lanahawa, 2 towns:
  • (1) on the west coast of Graham Island opposite Hippa Island;
  • (2) on the west coast of Burnaby Island south of Ket.
• Lanahilduns, on the southwest side of Rennell Sound, Graham Island.
• Lanaslnagai, 3 towns:
  • (1) on the east coast of Graham Island south of Cape Ball,
  • (2) on the west side of Masset Inlet where the inner expansion begins;
  • (3) on Yagun River.
• Lanaungsuls, on Masset Inlet.
• Nagus, in an inlet on the southwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Sahldungkun, on the west side of Yagun River at its mouth.
• Sakaedigialas, traditional, on or near Kuper Island.
• Sgilgi, in an inlet on the southwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Sindaskun, near the south end of the islands.
• Sindatahls, near Tsoo-skahli, an inner expansion of Masset Inlet.
• Singa, on the north side of Tasoo Harbor, west coast of Moresby Island.
• Skae, close to Cape St. James at the south end of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
• Skaito, on the west coast of Moresby Island near Gold Harbor.
• Skaos, at the entrance of Naden Harbor.
• Skena, legendary, just south of Sand Spit Point, Moresby Island.
• Skudus, on the north side of Lyell Island.
• Stlindagwai, in an inlet on the west coast of Moresby Island.
• Stunhlai, on the northwest coast of Moresby Island.
• Sulustins, on the east coast of Hippa Island.
• Ta, on the east coast of North Island.
• Te, on the west coast of Graham Island opposite Frederick Island.
• Tlgunghung, on the north side of Lyell Island.
• Tlhingus, on Louise Island.
• Tohlka, on the north coast of Graham Island just west of the entrance to Masset Inlet.
• Widja, on the north coast of Graham Island just west of the entrance of Masset Inlet.
• Yagun, on the north coast of Graham Island.
• Yaogus, on the southwest side of Louise Island.
• Yastling, in Naden Harbor, Graham Island.
• Yatza, on the north coast of Graham Island between North Island and Virago Sound.
• Youahnoe, given as a Kaigani town, perhaps identical with the town of Kaigani.

Makes me wonder if the same isn't available for Kwakwaka'wakw etc; I'll look around taht site.Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

War Canoe rewrite and Lootaas article needed

I just happened across War Canoe which knowledgeable contributors to this article will recognize as being seriously in need of work/rewriting; made me realize taht there isnt' anarticle on Lootaas and there certainly should be; I'll try and do up a stub but I hope some more Haida-knowledgeable person will help expand it (I'll do it later, after dinner and the gym).Skookum1 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Imperial Japan and Mongol Empire

Being 100% haida myself, I see nothing wrong with the comparison of haida warriors to Asian warriors. Neither were weak or submissive as the so called "warriors" from the lower 48. Native Americans such as Geronimo & Chief Joseph, who gave up they're land, people, & dignity, were weak compared to the Haidas, Tlingits, & Tsimshians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.173.196 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because Geronimo gave up his land just like *that*.

Kielbasa1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Somebody keeps on re-adding a bit of WP:Synthesis that the Haida attack methods were "the same" as those used by Imperial Japan and the Mongol Empire; any number of such comparisons could be made, from Crow techniques on hte Great Plains to the way Vikings operated, or most pointedly of all the invention of the blitzkrieg by the Germans and employed with devastating effect by the Third Reich; I'd added that comparison alongside the Japanese and Mongol ones a long time ago to make a point, and teh same IP user didn't like it and took it out; fine, but no comparisons are valid in Wikipedia terms, as that's "synthesis", an analysis not supported by any documentation and inherently a fallacy anyway. It's a specious comparison and whiel it's fashionable to look for, or make, connections between Asia and the Haida, it has no basis in ethnography or proper historiographic techniques; and as noted again, there are lots of other comparison that could be made as well. What would be more relevant in this section, which given some reorganization of the article I might take the time to do, is a chronicle of the various specific wars and attacks of the Haida during their brutallization and enslavement of other peoples, and the various attacks/reprisals on fur trade ships, and on each other. To the person always adding the Japan/Mongol comparison - I'll always take it out, it doesn't belong, escept in the realm of "popular mythology about the Haida". It might also be stated, perhaps, that their treatment of slaves was far worse than anything perpetrated by Americans on their slaves, or by the Romans and Greeks on theirs - and that's a statement of fact, not some kind of glorifying mythology of the kind you're making (or thinking you're making).Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i am learning here, but wonder how the "fact" that Haidas were worse to their slaves is any less specious. Seems to me that that is a reactionary pov based on your perception of the contrary bent of other editors on this article. 24.84.38.20 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a bit of a pointed insertion, but thet comparison is out there in at least one or two of the ordinary in-print works on Northwest Coast cultures, I don't have any volumes handy; it's not there at the moment. But consider that Greek slaves could own businesses, could even own other slaves, and were protected by law, and that the police in Athens were themselves slaves (of the city)...Roman slavery was much different, but even Romans had laws protecting some rights of slaves, or at least forbidding certain kinds of mistreatment. Haida slaves could be put to death without cause, other than bragging rights with another chief and how many slaves he could kill. There really is no comparison with Greek or Roman slavery, other than the word....Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw a website just yesterday, I don't think it was a Wiki article, where the author asserted that slave ownership was good for Haida chiefs as it gave opportunity for chiefs to amass wealth in the form of names earned thereby. It's also interesting to note that one reason the HBC shut down Forts Taku and Stikine was because their presence had engendered a new trade in slaves, who were bartered and captured for sale to get furs to sell to the fur companies.....though that had mostly to do with the Tlingit, but the same situation applied later re Fort Simpson (i.e .with the Haida)Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

POV template

I had to place this because the opening of the article is not written ethnographically and in a neutral fashion, but is written to present a particular POV and political agenda about the Haida, and specifically omits mention of British Columbia as if it did not exist; it was me who re-inserted mention of Canada as it had been taken out by one of the "Haida political censors". This article needs an NPOV rewrite, and evidently (see previous section) may ultimately need semi-protection to prevent mythology and romaniticized accounts from being added adn re-added and re-added....Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Like it or not, the Charlottes are a part of British Columbia, and their history under the British needs to go in. Otherwise it just raises the question as to why the border was drawn there and not elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.10.148 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity I did "find on page" for British Columbia, and there are only three instances; one in the infobox, one in the refs, and one in a cat-name. The opening paragraph needs a rewrite obviously, even given the small tweaks I made just now. The irony is that if Governor Douglas hadn't created the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the archipelago would have been overrun by Americans ultimately, and while the Haida were capapble of fighting them off, they probably would have been fully wiped out; British parochialism saved their warrior asses, basically; but in their modern political cosmos BC is apparently anathema..... BTW the material you removed didn't just take out the Asian contact, it took out mention of their very high profile as slave raiders; but that whole section is apparently copyvio from the Haida page on http://www.civilization.ca and really should be ditched entire....(or substantially rewritten so as not to be a copy-paste from the Museum of Civilziation site...Skookum1 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Some of the of the silliest statements I've read on Wikipedia, why would the Haida people try and fight the Americans off when they never flexed against the Brits?I guess as a matter of historical fact the Haida people of Hydaburg,USA are lucky to still be here.Why do you think your opinion is helpful here?

Old Masset v. Skidegate pic

I'm going to leave the IP user edit from the person who was born/raised in Skidegate....the source of the photo, which is in BC ARchives, says it's Old Masset - BUT that wouldn't be the first time BC Archives has had a wrong caption. Just noting these here for later if another editor checks the image description/source and sees the Old Masset attribution...someone who would know all the crests on teh poles adn teh arrangement of houses ,and theshape of the beach, will know for sure; for now I'll beileve the IP user ofver the gnoes of BC Archives who, like I said, get things wrong all the time.Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

wikilinks removed - why?

A few diffs back I had minimally rewritten a few sentences to include links I consider useful, to wit:

Haidas used to be slave traders and ruthless warriors, raiding as far as California. Haida oral narratives record journeys as far north as the Bering Sea, and one account implies that even Asia was visited by Haidas before Europeans entered the Pacific (see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact). The Haidas' ability to travel was dependent upon a supply of Western Red cedar trees that were carved and shaped into their famous Pacific Northwest canoes. Carved from a single tree, a vessel could sleep 15 adults head to toe, and was propelled by up to 60 paddlers (who often included women).

I am not sure why the links and these sentences were removed. If there are any factual inaccuracies, can they be corrected, so that the links (History of slavery, Dugout, etc. ) can be integrated in a sensible way? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just put them back in, I saw the same changes and meant to do it, but my plate's full. Removal of links in the course of xpansion/writing is a no-no without consensus on the subject. Haida pages in particular are rife with people making "censoring" edits; facts about slavery are particularly sensitive, though why slave trader was more acceptable than History of slavery to the editor in question is a mystery, especially since the latter article does mention the Haida, the former does not. So just knit things back in and see if whomever-it-was wants to quibble. As for the IP edits about Mongols and Japanese lightning raids, as per my edit comment this is clearly synthesis and also an unwarranted comparisoni; equine armies directed by Khan, or aircraft attacks across great distance a re very different from slave-raiding in canoes by individual bands/villages; the better-known "lightning raid" is the blitzkrieg, invented by Bismarck and made infamous by Hitler, but when I added that to the same comparison (which had re-appeared for the 10th time at that point) as an "experiment"/prod, the IP "contributor" quickly took it out. funny how one shoe fits, they think, but not another. I'm not sure what else that IP address edits; if it's only this there's grounds for an IP block. more than enough grounds....actual historical-era incidents and accounts of infra-Haida warfare are all out there; I added a couple re the Qualicums and Port Gamble but there's lots more....that is what should be in the article, not jejune comparisons to faraway empires; I think someone wants to esatablish a connective link there culture-wise; it's all puff-n-stuff and kinda boastfulSkookum1 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I've re-added them. I agree the Mongol & Japanese comparisons are spurious. I would support a block if the same edits continue. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio from civilization.ca

I don't have time and am not in the mood (I just got up) but I found this on the civilization.ca website (Cdn government-sponsosred, i.e. Museum of Civilization in Ottawa) and much of the copy on that page is verbatim what's here, including the first part of teh phrase that somebody keeps on adding the Mongol comparison to. Seems like a lot of content here should just be deleted as copyvio....might have been well-intended even by museum staff....at some point somebody's got to create a "circular" to send out about Wikipedia practices and content rules....Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This article just annoys me and I will get to it first thing next week (super busy all this week). I won't accomplish much, but I'll make it at least a decent Wikipedia article. OldManRivers (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found lots of interesting bits here and there, with a mind to some aspect of this article, but the lay of hte current text always needed so much work first it's hard to expand something that's not on solid ground to start with. But isn't it disappointing that the copy from the Museum of Civilization was substandard to start with; i.e. this was low-quality copyvio....anyway I'll try and remember the various links/tidbits and drop 'em here as they come back to me....User:pfly had some interesting Haida-tales re interactions with the early ship-captains. Don't forget that individual bios on Chiefs Cumehewa, Skidegate, complement other bios from the same period, and individual village/clan histories are all needed at some point; but teh core article needs someone like you to give this "indigenous wiki" form to build on...Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions

New editor User:Mny, to whose talkpage I have added a welcome, has made substantial, but unsubstantiated, changes (see diff) to the Haida#History section. As a sign of assuming good faith, instead of making deletes or further revisions, I'd like to attempt to discuss them here first. Some claims have been added, some material removed, and other items recast. Some of these changes are useful, but others are not encyclopedic. I'll put the new material in italics below. For example:

1. A new first paragraph asserts that "Haida civilization... blends socialism and capitalism". Not only is this not sourced, but it is not referred to or explained anywhere in the section.

2. What was formerly the lead paragraph has been reworded with a POV twist, and with a link removed:

Haidas used to be slave traders and ruthless warriors, raiding as far as California.

Always described by anxious Europeans as warriors and slave traders raiding as far as California ....

3. With reference to the possible trans-Pacific journeys, an addition has been made, but unfortunately without source

and one account by now deceased Haida historian Henry Geddes suggests that Asia was visited by Haidas

4. The paragraph about war and slaves has changed a lot:

The Haida went to war to acquire objects of wealth, such as coppers and Chilkat blankets, that were in short supply on the islands, but primarily for slaves, who enhanced their productivity or were traded to other tribes. High-ranking captives were also the source of other property received in ransom such as crest designs, dances and songs.

The Haida created notions of wealth such as seen in the first ever totem poles on the coast and the first bent boxes embellished with designs describing the Haida concept of "The One Under the Sea". War was always subject to rules of engagement and lineage relationships and ceremony frequently described the course of battle. Slaves were the common result of war and this labor force not only provided additional economic capacity, it also allowed for the successful captor to collect substantial intellectual property in the way of names.

5. In addition, this allusion to secret knowledge would seem difficult to document, and thus unencyclopedic.

The lineage connections amongst Nations that supported a core "royal" hierarchy in otherwise distant and apparently hostile communities is seldom discussed or even known outside a small group of indigenous intellectuals.

6. And this material appears to have been deleted:

In the event of a battle at sea, paddlers were armed with heavy stone rings (18 to 23 kg) attached to woven tree root or bark ropes. These devices, are thrown at enemy canoes, inflicting substantial damage. Haida warriors entered battle with red cedar armor, wooden shields, stone maces and atlatls. War helmets were carved. These techniques are unknown to anyone other than the Haida people as they have kept it secret for many years. It is still unknown how the Haida would carve their war helmets and how they looked.

All of these issues need to be addressed. Please add sources, if you can. If not, much of this will have to go. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; this bit though " one of the world's great classic art traditions. " is citable as opinion/critique, though non-COI documentation may be difficult, e.g. in the preamble to Bill Reid's and Bill Holm's book (the "dialogue") I know it's said, it may be in any number of AMNH or other museum publications. I'm in no mood to dig up the cites, but they are out there. The euhemerization of the slave trade and residual slave/caste social issues today is typical; I'll be back with a good source-link on all that....Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And while in English, especially American English, the term "Chilkat blanket" refers to a particular type of cape-manteau decorated a certain way, "Chilkat" is a specific tribe, a specific style of art/cut; it's not even really correct to use it for a blanket worn/made by another Tlingit group, much less the Haida. The term "Haida blanket" just doesn't work in the same way, whatever the Haida language name might be; still Chilkat blanket needs an article....I wonder what WikiProject there might be for costume/textiles etc.?Skookum1 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be it, thanks....mountain-goat wool is of course a textile (if woven), though mother-of-pearl spangles aren't....(but sequins must be in the same WP, no?)....Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

i believe the haida word for chilkat- style blankets is Naxiin (i'll try to find out for sure). for number6 i did wonder myself if it were true. i don't think that red cedar would have been the best material available for armor, and i believe it also originally stated that they were covered, or bound with elk hide, or some other non-indigenous species. which all may be true, just set off some alarm bells. number 4 (if cited) would be an interesting contribution. if such theories do exist in published form, first place i would look would be wilson duff... or maybe george mcdonald.Inforlife (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've forgotten the name I knew for elk-hide cuirasses, it was Tsimshian maybe; and I think it was in a fur trade record concerning a large number of these in one transaction; they were a trade-good...armour of various kinds was used along the Coast, there's a picture of a Kwakwa'wakw warrior somewhere already in Wikipedia where he's got on some kind of chain mail (prob. leather rather than metal). Cedar, as a soft wood, doesn't strike me asvery useful for armour either, and it spits way too easily...I'd rather have fir strapped to my body than cedar, if given the choice...and alder would be better still of course....Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resources

• 'Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of America, by Leland Donald (Google Books)
• General search for "Haida" at google Books
• there are other google books of use: I've noted that in works on the Tsimshian, Tlingit, Heiltsuk and others, mentions of the Haida and relations/wars with them turn up regularly, so when looking for materials bear in mind that historical details on the Haida aren't necessarily found in boooks titled/about them.....also in the various BCGNIS listings on placenames for Spanish and American ships and captains, details of relations/trade/war with the Haida are also common.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

In March 2008, extensive text was pasted here from [1] by an IP contributor. Text can only be placed on Wikipedia if it is public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. This is clearly note the case, as the website prominently reserves copyright: here. Unless permission is forthcoming (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission), this material will have to be removed. Editors who would like to rewrite the material may do so in the temporary space linked from the article's face. If the material is not revised by the end of the seven day listing at the copyright problems board and no permission is forthcoming, it may be necessary to delete the text and restore an earlier version of the article, prior to the introduction of this infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/haida/havwa01e.shtml. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Haidia - merge, or just delete?

The Haidia article IMO should just have been ditched from day one of its creation, as its title is wrong and the content is amateurish - and by the look of its sole citation would appear to be copyvio. Some of its facts/elements might be incorporatable into the existing Haida article, but its text is too awkward to bother with any actual integration/merge and, as already noted, might be copyvio from the sole source given, though it can be used as a citation. Looks to me like a high school essay the author decided to throw up as a wikipedia article....Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Haidia article should be sent to WP:AfD. PKT(alk) 14:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a misspelling, my thought is to simply blank the content and redirect the title here. The only reason I didn't do so when I tagged it was on the off change that there was some verifiable (if amateurish) content worth adding here. (And I don't have the time to check this myself, unfortunately) I do favor a redirect because if it's totally deleted, someone else who can't spell could recreate it later. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I would go along with that. PKT(alk) 12:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done by another editor. Not sure if there was a need to merge any of the material, but that's what the edit history if for if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun by redirecting that article. I didn't realize it was being discussed here. The article read a bit like something written for a school project, and I felt the best thing to do was redirect to the correctly spelled title. --NormanEinstein (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point; there may be one or two details in the "new" one, such as mountain goat wool blankets, but yeah "school project" sums it up....and while "Haidia" can remain as a direct I've never ever seen that anywhere until now. Hydah, Hyda etc. yes but not -ia.Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The very beginning

"The Haida are an indigenous nation of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America."

Shouldn't it be "The Haidas are" etc. (plural)? 62.98.127.18 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like "sheep, not sheeps". The plural form might be seen in the construction "there were a group of Haids camped on the point" vs "there were Haida camped on the point"....one referring to individuals as a group, the other referring as a general ethnonym; but when referring to them as a whole, the singular form is normal...Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

that is very rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:78E3:3400:A03A:B4D6:3114:FEC0 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Creeping copyvio/POV?

There's a lot of mumbo jumbo introduced into this article since last I looked at it; especially the affectations "Haida Empire", "Kaigani Empire", "Tsimshian Empire"...and why the Battle of Sitka, which is Tsimshian history, has been included is a bit of a non-sequitur. It strikes me that a lot of the additions seem to be "lifted" from a longer published work; very few citations have been provided for the additions, which should be reviewed and passages checked against Google for probable CopyVio...it's hard to tell where the quote from the museum quote ends and if much of the ramble that comes after is from there...there's a lot of overly grandiose claims here now, and not proper historical specifics....Skookum1 (talk)

Copyright violation

I just removed the paragraph starting, The Haida went to war to acquire objects of wealth, such as coppers and Chilkat blankets..., which was copied from the copyrighted book Haida Art. Pfly (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have restored to an earlier version as once again unregistered contributors have been pasting content from the fully reserved Canadian Museum of Civilization. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know two things.... First Why is their such massive discolouration on this? Their is a one sentence stub for Haida and a bigger stub for the Haida council then their is this one on the Haida people... This could all be condensed into one entry

And considering what Russ George did there in coerced cooperation/ manipulation of the Haida I would think Planktos and the largest act of eco vandalism/terrorism would be mentioned all over the Haida articles.... That is what I came here to learn more about.. instead I found nothing but stubs and bickering..

Bickering about copy right infringement.

Maybe "fair Use" laws don't apply to wiki... maybe yall hated the heck out of the unoriginal content... I don't know.... It seems to me though that as long as yall remain a non profit that you will not be infringe upon any copyrighted work by making money off it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2012 (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 09:14, 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Haida people → Haida – target is dab page converted from original "Haida" title by Kwami Feb 1, 2011 with no regard to UNDAB, then made into a dab page also by Kwami with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the disambiguation page Haida should be moved to Haida (disambiguation) as the people is the primary topic for "Haida". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry should have done a dual RM; I'll file one there now.Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as Haida dab shows many meanings, including that Haida is the old German name for Nový Bor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 March 2014
  • Which is fine if you're an older German searching for that town - but what's the MOSTCOMMON usage of this term? The answer seems obvious, and as per my comment on Talk:Tlingit language#Requested move "Haida" is a noun, "Haida people" is an adjectival/secondary use, as is "Haida language"...."the Haida" means on thing; all other such uses such as their government or the ships named for them are also secondary, and there's no reason to oppose Haida (disambiguation) as to where they can be, given that - what percentage of searches do you think? - searches for "Haida" are overwhelmingly about the people.Skookum1 (talk) 10:22, 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) 12:25, 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) 12:51, 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) 14:32, 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. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 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 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are a number of very strong and competing users of Haida and I believe the current approach of naturally disambiguating them is most appropriate. There does appear to be a very real chance of creating ambiguity with this move. Although the Haida people article is the most visited in the subject area it does not hold the majority of page views.
  • Haida people has been viewed 7349 times[2]
  • Haida Gwaii has been viewed 6285 times[3]
  • The dab page itself (Haida) been viewed 2593[4]
  • Haida language has been viewed 1896 times [5]
  • HMCS Haida (G63) has been viewed 1516 times[6]

I think the topic area of Haida is a somewhat special case and the current approach for it seems most appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

They are all "somewhat special cases"..... the secondary uses Haida Gwaii and HMCS Haida which per DAB and PRIMARYTOPIC are not factors in primary topic claims (being "FOO whatever" and "whatever FOO") are irrelevant to the comparison; those that matter, re the premise (which I hold to be entirely false) that language is as much a primary topic as the people whose culture it is from is not borne out at all above, i.e. 7349 to 1896 times is a ratio of 3.88 to one, almost 4:1 in other words - such that even with these infra-wiki searches it is CLEAR that the people are the primary target. Also within-wikipedia searches are skewed because of linguistics-oriented editors looking up language articles they may be working on (tweaking IPA and such); the general public (the readership at large vs the specialist community who are very active here) when looking up "Haida" as a standalone word are inherently more likely to want information on the people, and only part of that information is the language. Your own stats show that, though you dilute them with things that are nowhere near under consideration as PRIMARYTOPIC according to disambiguation/UNDAB and TITLE guidelines. Nothing could be a more clear demonstration of the primary of the people subject as what you have just provided....but you maintain it means the opposite.Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

the ship and Haida Gwaii are not primarytopics, as indicated by TITLE and by UNDAB: and how many of those views of Haida Gwaii were via the Queen Charlotte Islands redirect? How many of the views of the dab page were by persons looking for the article about the Haida as a group? Is there a way of telling which selection on the page they meant? Only in linguistics, a specialist field not of normal interest to the general reader (per TITLE), is the language construed as "equal" to the people it's named after? What its name is in the Haida language is another matter altogether; it's not in English, I've never heard the name, unlike Sm'algyax and Gitxsanimaax and St'at'imcets and Halkomelem and Kwak'wala which are part of English now. The latter two are spoken by more than one group of people - one reason they are now in common use; the first three not so much unless you live in those regions.Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" Given the split in search results I simply not convinced.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely you can't maintain that people who put "Haida" in the searchbox are expecting to get a disambiguation page?? What evidence do you have that those who went to that page went to the language article on an equal basis, or even comparable to, people looking for information on the Haida? I'm busy teaching right now but will look up teh guideline that is about "FOO" being primary topic over "FOO WHATEVER".Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite fair to assume, based on the divided search data that individuals typed in Haida thinking of a topic other than the population. They may not have been looking for a dab page but that certainly doesn't mean they were looking for article about the people either.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – per Labattblueboy and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ENeville (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • See my analysis of those results just added above; HMCS Haida and Haida Gwaii are secondary topics; the relevant comparison is only between the people article and the language one, and there is a 4:1 ratio even in LBB's own search.Skookum1 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What has been ignored by "oppose" votes here is very clear in TITLE as "Precision" There was never any need for a "people" dab here other than as self-mandated by the authors of WP:NCL who apparently chose to ignore the precepts of TITLE and other guidelines in their creation of that, and its implementation. TITLE is very clear about primary uses vs secondary uses; including the ship and the archipelago/"country" in the dab above was entirely misleading and not relevant.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 30 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.

split needed: Haida vs Haida people between ethno/history and "individuals who are/were Haida"

Category:Haida people already indicates what that phrase most commonly means - "individuals who are/were Haida".....the list of modern and historically notable Haida here is growing, and will continue to grow, and as with other articles/topics of this kind, a separation is needed between the general ethno/history article and an article about individuals past and present; this is normal; the current title is not and was a fly-by-night imposition of a needless dab; the RM close was flawed in so many ways it's not worth "going at it here"....my point is that the current title is BEST suited for use as an article about "individuals who are Haida", so that they can be discussed in moredetail than the bullet-pointed list format here so far. Similarly a full List of Haida villages is much more extensive and I will split that off soon from the redirect to the villages section here that that title currently is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haida people/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.

Needs thorough revision. Skookum1 - 20 Feb, 06 Much revised and rewritten since last assessment. A solid article, but in need of copyedit and general polishing. Phaedriel - 12 July, 06 Went over with a copy edit and polish. Getting there now. Keefer4 - 24 Jan, 07

Last edited at 11:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haida people. 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/20140116083444/http://www.qciobserver.com/Article.aspx?Id=2882 to http://www.qciobserver.com/Article.aspx?Id=2882
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116021359/http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/edu/edu1d_E.asp to http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/edu/edu1d_E.asp

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) 23:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Organizing This Article

Hey gang!

If you look at the history you may have noticed that I have recently made some... sizable changes. I rearranged many of the sections (placing warfare under culture, making religion a separate subheading under culture) and consolidated the two (why were there two?????) history sections to the best of my abilities. I also removed a great deal of repetitive and unnecessary information (information about the Haida language belongs in the Haida language wiki.

The introduction still needs a great deal of work, relocating much of the information to the history or culture sections, and basically writing a whole new introduction that provides a broader overview of Haida culture

The history section is also lacking details on the Lyle Island protests, the Smallpox Epidemic of 1862, the Potlatch Ban, the revitalization of Haida art in the 60s and 70s, the formation of reservations etc. There should also be a whole lot more on Haida art (totem poles, bentwood boxes, jewellery, argillite carvings etc.) I will be endeavouring to add these over the next few weeks but some help would be appreciated :)

Also, do we need a whole section dedicated to the calendar? I would argue that it belongs in the Haida language wiki

Lemme know what you guys think (and sorry that I made such drastic changes without coming here first, they were driving me insane)

Kungjaada (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

This article has been promoted to B-class by all three WikiProjects listed. I didn't look at the history but there is an October 2007 tag that the article needs additional citations for verification. A look at the criteria (especially #1) suggests there is more than one reason this article should be a C-class at best and needing a review. I will leave a note on those projects. Otr500 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Change classification per above comments. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Calendar again

I see from #Organizing This Article that the calendar section bothered someone enough to remove it but they don't appear to have moved it to Haida language as was suggested. So there is now a dead link from the list of calendars article. Would a regular editor of this topic resolve please? (and clear the bot notification at the top of talk:list of calendars when done.) TYVM. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The same issue has arisen at lunisolar calendar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Practice of Slavery

The Haida went to war to acquire objects of wealth, such as coppers and Chilkat blankets, that were in short supply on the islands, but primarily for slaves, who enhanced their productivity or were traded to other tribes. High-ranking captives were also the source of other property received in ransom such as crest designs, dances and songs.[7]https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/haida/havwa01e.html This continued well into the colonial period of the 19th Century despite, and in resistance to, slavery being banned in the British Empire and more specifically in Canada. 2A02:C7C:7257:5000:35A6:71D7:9FD4:1D08 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)