Talk:Nanabush
Merge[edit]
Since this article concerns the exact same figure as Nanabozho, the two clearly should be merged. Since Nanabozho is (I believe) the spelling in the now widely-accepted Fiero double vowel transliteration system for Ojibwe, I feel that the contents of this article should be merged into the other one. If anyone objects, please let me know. --Whimemsz 22:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind merging these two articles. Obviously they refer to the same figure. However, Nanabush tends to be the name used by the Ojibwe. Nanabozho by the Chippewa. Perhaps you will say "they are the same people." However, I find that the Chippeaw and Ojibway in Ontario are not identical. Once you cross the U.S. border there are much greater differences.
- These merged articles tend to take on a kind of American cultural appropriation. The people get called "Native Americans" instead of "First Nations," spelling of words likewise tends to follow American conventions. Just some thoughts... Sunray 04:06, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- Man, I forgot I made this comment. I was going to go back and strike it through. A few hours after I posted it, I was thinking about all the dialectal differences in Ojibwe--the only dialect I know anything about is the one spoken in Minnesota and Wisconsin (Southwestern Ojibwe). So ignore that comment. However, we obviously still need to merge the two articles. --Whimemsz 16:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- And I just looked it up in the dictionary, and the Minnesota Ojibwe form (at least in Mille Lacs) is Wenabozho. So...I guess I was just completely wrong. Bah. --Whimemsz 19:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Man, I forgot I made this comment. I was going to go back and strike it through. A few hours after I posted it, I was thinking about all the dialectal differences in Ojibwe--the only dialect I know anything about is the one spoken in Minnesota and Wisconsin (Southwestern Ojibwe). So ignore that comment. However, we obviously still need to merge the two articles. --Whimemsz 16:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you think that they must be merged? I would tend to just cross-reference them. But maybe I'm missing something. Sunray 03:42, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- Well, simply because they're both about the same figure, so it seems pointless to have two separate articles... --Whimemsz 20:08, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Simple and logical, just like that, huh? Well, I guess I agree. I just checked on the frequency of use of the two terms and they are very close, but Nanabozho wins out by a small margin. So the main article would be Nanabozho with a redirect for Nanabush? Sunray 23:53, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)