Jump to content

Talk:Odawa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get rid of the parentheses

[edit]

To get rid of the parentheses, what to people say to moving this article to Odawa? QuartierLatin1968 01:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outaouais

[edit]

Does this article refer to the same people as the Outaouais (tribe)? I created the Outaouais (tribe) article by splitting the Outaouais article, which was also for a region in Quebec. The Outaouais article said that: "They did not have a written language, and the name Outaouais is a French phonetic representation of their name. Ottawa is the English spelling." Kurieeto 19:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ottawa, Ottowa, Odaawaa, Odawa, Tawas, and Outaouais are all the same. In addition, Ottawa went by other names as well such as "Courte Oreilles" (as in Lac Courte Oreilles, as in a lake and an Ojibwe Reservation in northern Wisconsin). In addition, their name translated literally into English gives us the name "Trade" or "Trader" as in Trade River, a tributary of the St. Croix River that forms the boundary between Wisconsin and Minnesota, located on Wisconsin's side. unsigned by CJLippert, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone thoughtfully did a redirect for Outaouais (tribe), I see... Thanks, whoever did that! ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

User:Leo1410 have begun a survey of all thing associated with the Anishinaabe peoples. Please visit (and possibly add, edit) to User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe, or from there create a new article. Miigwech CJLippert 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odawa people

[edit]

I agree with the commenter above. I think the article should be renamed to Odawa people or Odawa (people) or simply Odawa. The form Odawa is the one recommended by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which is the authority for the English language in Canada, used by the government, Canadian Press and most newspapers. Which sources recommend using the term Ottawa or Odaawaa in English?? The former simply resends to Odawa in the Canadian Oxford. The latter looks like the name of the people in one of the writing systems of the language itself. Odawa is the English name.--206.248.172.247 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odawa v. Odaawaa

[edit]

If the title of the page is called Odawa, and Odawa and Ottawa are the two most commonly-recognized names for the people, why is the subject referenced as Odaawaa every time after the first paragraph? Odaawaa looks like some sort of phonetic representation of the name, not the one most commonly used. The article suggests Odawa is the Potawatomi spelling (corruption?) of Odaawaa? I'm not well-versed in the standards for naming in indigenous articles in Wikipedia, but from a fairly comprehensive literature review, I haven't seen many references to the double-A Odaawaa. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Somerut (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're seeing is differences in orthography, not corruption of the spelling. In Odaawaa, either "Odaawaa", "Wdaawaa" or "Daawaa" are correct. In Boodewaadamii, "Odawa", "Wdawa" and "Dawa" are correct, while in Ojibwe, "Odaawaa" is the correct in all non-syncope dialects and choices are same as that of Odaawaa for syncope dialects. CJLippert (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. One more? If Odaawaa is the preferred spelling, then, why isn't it used as the title of the page? Somerut (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Ottawa" and "Odawa" are far more common than "Odaawaa". The logistics still needs to be worked out. Take a look at the redirects to the article. CJLippert (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Somerut has a point. It all boils down to one question: do we use endonyms or exonyms? I say: let's use endonyms (or semi endonyms) where we can. I am also in favor of a standardized spelling. I'm already in the process of carrying this through consistently in the Dutch Wikipedia. Odaawaa (plural Odaawaag), Ojibwe (which is not really an endonym by the way - plural Ojibweg), Bodewadmi (plural Bodewadmik), Lakota/Dakota/Nakota instead of Sioux, Haudenosaunee instead of Iroquois, Dineh instead of Navajo, Tohono O'odham instead of Papago, et cetera. With SOME exceptions that confirm the rule - I will get back later on this one. As for the standardized spelling, let's for example use Ojibwe instead of Ojibwa or Ojibway. If we standardize we can finally stop talking in terms of "America-centric" vs "Canada-centric" naming. -Zhaawano (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an English language Wikipedia, the term most commonly used in English is chosen. Both Ojibwe and Ojibwa are perfectly acceptable. All endonyms and alternative spellings should be mentioned where the name of the group is discussed, then try to stick to one term for the rest of the article, in this case "Odawa." -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Exactly what I was about to say. The article should use consistent English spelling as indicated by reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 'reliable sources'. What you mean is this: Indigenous nations in Canada and the US are subjugated peoples and their age old institutions of scientific knowledge shall and will never be accepted as reliable sources. It is the dominant (Anglo) society that tells them what their proper names are.

Zhaawano (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means this is an English language Wikipedia. And Native people, such as myself, edit it, and use books and newspapers authored by Native peoples as secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Yes, I know you do, and that's exactly my point. In editing the Dutch Wikipedia - I currently live in the Netherlands - , I use my own Native knowledge (experience) as well as books and newspapers authored by Native peoples as primary sources. I try to use endonyms instead of exonyms, and would, for instance, never use the word 'tribe' - except of course when it is part of a Nation's official name. I don't think my working method makes the Dutch Wikipedia less Dutch and neither do the Dutch Wikipedians seem to think so - in fact one of my articles (Ojibweg) has been labeled a featured article. Don't get me wrong though, I do respect your opinions and working method. I just don't agree with your point of view.

Zhaawano (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only guessing, but I expect that comparatively speaking, there is a significantly greater volume of work in English on the Odawa than in Dutch. Such that the terms have become almost, if not fully, a part of American (including Canadian) English vernacular. That complicates matters significantly. We use whatever terms are used most by reliable English language sources. It is not the mission of Wikipedia to attempt to promote a POV in redressing centuries of cultural imperialism. older ≠ wiser 05:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New image File:An Indian of ye Outawas Tribe & his Family going to War by George Townshend, 4th Viscount and 1st Marquess Townshend.jpg

[edit]

I recently uploaded a public-domain sketch of Ottawa people by George Townshend (it says "Outawas," but the artist's history makes it clear that he means this people, right). Feel free to use if you think it'd be useful. Dcoetzee 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image would be useful later, but not right now the way the article is written. Under the "Early History" section, if that could be broken out to 1) Migration stories based on Oral Histories, 2) emergence of Odawa regional power through trade, 3) war and refugees, 4) treaties and removals and 5) extinguishment and survival, at that point, the image may be helpful in the "war and refugees" sub-section. Otherwise, it would always be good to have the image in the Wikimedia Commons, with a link from this article to the Commons. CJLippert (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odawa or Ottawa?

[edit]

Isn't Ottawa the usual name in English? My move was just reverted, but when I first saw the "Odawa" article, I had no idea what it was about. I just did a search on Google Books, restricted to the last 20 years since "Odawa" seems to be getting more common, and "Ottawa people" was still 4× as common as "Odawa people"; "Ottawa language" is 3× as frequent as "Odawa language"; "Ottawa Nation" is 11× as common as "Odawa Nation", and "Ottawa tribe" is 20× as common as "Odawa tribe". (The closest was for "dialect", where there's only a 2:1 ratio.)

Ngram suggests that Odawa is catching up,[1] but isn't there yet; and in any case only in certain contexts, as in many "Odawa" is unattested.[2][3]

— kwami (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question boils down to Endonym or Exonym (see above).
Here is a parallel (again, with the Ngram ranking):
  • UK-English: Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ojibway-Ojibwe
  • US-English: Chippewa-Ojibwa-Ojibwe-Ojibway
  • French: Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ojibway-Ojibwé
  • Wikipedia: Ojibwe (reached through concensus, with multiple redirects)
So, back to Odawa v. Ottawa issue at hand. I would side on the "Odawa" (though my personal preferance would be "Odaawaa") as "Ottawa" too often means the city and "Ottawa people" would too often mean the city's residents, and not this group of Anishinaabe peoples. Maybe we want to broaden this discussion up to the whole WP:IPNA? I'm sure similar issues will come up elsewhere with other native peoples. CJLippert (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with CJ Lippert. Most of the Odawa people I know use Odawa, since it does eliminate confusion w/ Ottawa, Toronto or Ottawa, Kansas. "Ottawa people" on Google includes mentions of people from locations named Ottawa. A move away from the current name would require consensus, which has been not established. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi
It's not just endonym vs. exonym, it's also COMMONNAME and ENGLISH. 'Ottawa City people' may explain some of the discrepancy, but it doesn't explain 'Ottawa Nation' or 'Ottawa tribe'. I can understand wanting an unambiguous name, but if most people fail to recognize the result, we haven't reached that goal. In any case, I doubt anyone would expect an article on "Ottawa people" to be about residents of Ottawa. (Maybe I'm overestimating people there?)
"Most of the Odawa people I know" is pretty much the point: how many of us who don't know any Odawa would recognize that form? And how many English speakers outside of Canada, or perhaps even a rather limited area within Canada, know any Odawa people?
I'm reasonably well educated. I recognize a fair number of the Salish endonyms, and some of those are pretty opaque. I'm just not familiar with the Odawa, and I had *no* idea who they were—not even to the nearest continent—as the only term I'd ever seen for them was "Ottawa". — kwami (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odawa people → Odawa – target is redirect to current title, started as "Odawa (tribe)" by BKonrad on July 23 2004, then turned into a WP:TWODABS dab page by Sonjaaa on Sept 26 2008 then redirected to "Odawa people" by Usyvdi on June 28 2011 citing WP:TWODABS. Odawa people title was moved to "Ottawa people" by Kwami on Feb 27 2011, wrongly citing COMMONNAME, apparently because of a plethora of older cites using "Ottawa", in direct confusion with the MOSTCOMMON use of "Ottawa" in English. This was moved back to "Odawa people" by Uysvdi on Feb 28 2011, citing "Restoring previous name, move to "Ottawa" was not discussed, not necessary a more common name for this ethnic group and easily confused with the Canadian city)". Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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) 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odawas has been viewed 210 times in 201403.
Odawa people has been viewed 2595 times in 201403.
ENeville (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Odawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

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

Has some content and good links. Could use illustrations and more content --Lar (12 February 06)

Last edited at 22:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 01:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Odawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Anishinaabeg" as an insult

[edit]

Per this edit [4] and edit summary "Anishinaabeg" is a racially insulting term similar to the N word, a twist on the correct word, "Anishinaabe". It's unthinkable that you had it on your site.". This seems very unlikely, considering this publication Anishinaabeg Today, which uses the term in it's title, is the official publication of White Earth Reservation. A quick google search also did not find evidence that the term in question is an insult. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if someone can provide some links, otherwise I am reverting. Heiro 20:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odawa&oldid=1209478109"