This is an archive of past discussions with User:Skookum1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, as I alluded to, I'm anticipating/planning on freeing myself up from the sedentary life for a while, and so won't be doing Wiki at some time in the not-too-distant future, maybe a couple of months or less, so I'm trying to set out the framework of what I see needs to be done, and articles/topics that need to get written up. I can't do it all by myself anyway, but it's a full-time gig already if I keep with it and I need to get on with stuff, and make good what years there are left for me or for the world. Don't mean to sound poetic/starry-eyed, but you can't help the way you're made I guess ;-) So all these various article-ideas are pointers in the direction the BC content on Wikipedia could go, which is greater coverage than anything else in print in the long run; especially sorting out the maze of First Nations information that we only get partially filtered and in very jumbled fashion through media as well as curriculum; Wiki has the advantage in that it's constantly updating and never out-of-date, if it's kept up with. I added the Wikipedians for Local History Wikiproject to the related projects area for a good reason, and it ties in also with the density of coverage of native culture and society (like the village/chieftaincy spinoff pages from Tsimshian): already we've seen tiny-place articles where someone wrote about where they're from, and town/city articles where people interested in the place have and do contribute consistently; it's a potentially fascinating and obviously unprecedented coverage of local history in BC, as well as of (ahem) recent/current politics (ahem). Anyway, yeah, point is I'll be focusing on a last series of articles I've always intended to at least start, and also try and come up with directions to point anyone else in for further articles to write - before I just suddenly pull up stakes and post the extended Wikibreak template sometime soon, y'see.... there's always geographic articles which can be brought up way past stub, too, like the lakes, rivers, and parks....it's a sunny day and I do gotta get out. Later....Skookum100:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Paull Article
Hey Skookum1. After thinking of other Sḵwxwú7mesh people to do articles on and fix up. (Like the Joe Capilano article, one person I figured would be good, not only for Sḵwxwú7mesh, but the Indigenous politics through out Canada. I have some written work on Andy Paull. A thesis, the biography, etc. Plus my grandmother is his daughter. My question is: should it be Andy Paull or Andrew Paull? OldManRivers03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Was poking around on several talk pages and saw you contributing prolifically, then saw a lot about languages on your user page. If you know anyone who is interested in endangered languages, please be so kind as to point them in the general direction of WP:ENLANG. Thanks for your time! --Ling.Nut04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
hey
skookum, in the British Columbia wikiproject and in the Vancouver wiki project, Barnston Island is rated mid importance, yet Anmore is rated low importance. I read both articles and the requirements for the importance ratings, and I fail to see what makes Barnston Island substantially more important to the province than anmore. What accounts for this difference? TotallyTempo22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Different BC project editors placing the template at different times is why, and also giving different ratings; the ratings don't mean much, and most should be "mid"; I don't recall rating Anmore myself, but it should have been "mid" and because it's a GVRD muni I probably would have put "high". Barnston I think I rated and it got "mid" because it's got a fair-sized local history to it, as well as certain bits of regional politics, never mind its location; Annacis and Mitchell Island both get "mid" at least as well (Annacis may even have/had "high").Skookum122:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the photo caption. Yes, Sinclair Centre should be a definite addition. Glad Hastings was a 'Keep', although it seemed the deletionists got their words in before the decision was rendered. Need sources, my butt... I was raised on Hastings and anyone who knows anything about Vancouver knows it belongs. Well anyway, off to the Herzog photo exhibit. See ya.--Keefer420:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hollywood (South)
I should add to what I said that it seems quite obvious to me that DEYS is not paid by some office for his work. I don't want to detail just how obvious it is because I am not into "outing" editors and I will show him some civility. Who knows, maybe there will be a Hollywood ending and I'll get a little in return. =) --JGGardiner09:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Buildings
thought you wouldn't mind if your talk page was archived again. Anyway, I started a sandbox page for ideas on expanding the buildings category for Vancouver, either for their architectural signicance, or historical significance. Feel free to stop by, make additions, comments, jokes, or whatever. Or even sources for more obscure ones. I will draw on the requested articles list and your requests thereon, but I wanted to try and map it out a little before hand. What's there now is just what I dumped from the top of my head, but I want to think it through a bit better. My thinking is that there should be 2 or more general articles, and then daughter articles for the more significant ones. That way, it'd be more user-friendly, and could accomodate buildings that might have a hard time standing on their own notability-wise.User:Bobanny/historical buildings I saw your comment to Ken above about bailing, and I'm almost there myself, so can't say I'll follow through. I've never thought of WikiPedia as an addiction, but in a way, it gives that feeling of never being satisfied because no matter what you do, it's never even close to being something you can check off on your to-do list, and the list just grows. Okay, it's late and I'm starting to ramble, ciao. Bobanny 09:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC) PS: I'll leave a message for Keefer, but feel free to point anyone else who might be interested to my buildings page.Bobanny09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ghost towns
Hello again, Skookum. I saw your article on List of ghost towns in British Columbia. Very interesting. I didn’t know there were so many ghost towns in BC! My only criticism of the article is that the table is awfully wide. With so many columns, it squeezes the data more than one might like. I have proposed a couple of alternative solutions on a temp page here. Feel free to use it or not at your discretion. ●DanMS21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gosh Skookum, I don't know what to say to you. You're definitely one of the most knowledgeable editors that I've come across here and I doubt that anyone on WP knows more about BC history than you do. I know that you've created tons of content, rescued and created articles that simply wouldn't be here otherwise. It feels funny giving advice about WP to someone who has many times the number of edits that I do. But I have to say something. You really have to mind the civility. Wikipedia is really a community as much as anything else and how you interact with everyone is as important as the content you have to add. Like I said it feels funny especially because you know exactly what I'm talking about and you've said it yourself. I don't want to see anyone not editing here when they could be contributing, especially as much as you have. --JGGardiner09:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean about an off-wiki life. My contributions here have been pretty irregular since last summer. I’d hate to lose any Wikipedia work but if anyone has something more important to do in real life, they probably should.
I understand that it has been frustrating dealing with DEYS. I know that I have had to edit a few posts before I submitted them. But I think that I have managed to be direct without crossing any lines. DEYS himself will have to learn the rules or he won’t last as a Wikipedian. I don’t think that he works for a PR agency like your friend rascalpatrol. Although some of his early edits were of the subject-likes-puppies variety. I didn't look very deeply. Like I said, I don't like to "out" editors, you know. --JGGardiner07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thought I would ask if there is a standard for the ethno articles. Like, "History, Culture, Society, Important Figures." or anything else like that. Then, if there is something like that, is there a standard for the Indian Act band council government pages. Want to work on a few Indigenous articles, but I'm not sure what I should write on first. Thanks OldManRivers00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman
It was intentional. But not because of Bornmann.
Actually I'd forgotten that Bronmann was called that. Now of course I wish that I had been clever enough to think of that. --JGGardiner21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Wagonrd2a.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wagonrd2a.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Mountain ranges
The Cascade range article, for example, is part of the Cascade range category. The Cascade range category is and should be a member of all the categories you mentioned. I should have indicated I was 'deleting double level categories'. I saw/see no purpose in having both the article and ts same named category as members of another category. Thanks Hmains17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Pig War reversion
Well done on the reversion. I was tempted to do it myself last night but didn't get around to it. I have picked up a couple of history books from the library that deal with these events, interesting stuff. I also have a couple on the coastal shipping that I want to put into an article that will fit nicely with your ship lists. I see that the automatic archiving on the project talk page is working now. I have it on my talk page as well. Seems like a good way to go. Cheers --KenWalker | Talk21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Lieutenant Governors of BC
Thank you for doing the necessary removal of the colonial governors and creating their own article. Unfortunately, your editorial activity seems to inadvertently resulted in the loss of the terms. Could you reinsert them somehow when you get the chance? Much thanks. Fishhead6408:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern, which I think is valid, although I'm not sure I agree. At any rate, until the separate people article is written from the First Nation article, it makes sense to include them both on the same page. - TheMightyQuill07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, while it seems the Squamish First Nation was undoubtedly a European construct forced upon a people, that doesn't mean all First Nations are. For instance, the Yekooche First Nation was originally forced into the Stuart Trembleur band (now Tl'azt'en Nation) but separated in 1994. Obviously all First Nations exist partly in relation to the Indian Act, but not necessarily as passive creations of it. - TheMightyQuill07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The situation is muddled because many band governments have adopted the term "First Nation" or "Nation" to replace Indian Band; others stick with Indian Band but are the same thing. And it varies from reserve to reserve, even within nations, as to what the usage is; Squamish Nation to Oldmanrivers, a Squamish person/Skwxwu7mesh means something imposed on his people, who are, by his chosen and apparently the official usage, Skwxwu7mesh, but in Mt Currie while Lil'wat Nation is used synonymously with the Mount Currie Indian Band, and also synymous with the Lower St'at'imc (well, including In-SHUCK-ch in that terminology; Nequatque are Upper St'at'imc), "Lil'wat Nation" is also the name used by the more radical element in Mt Currie's people, who act above and outside the band government, often in defiance and condemnation of it (as with the Cayoosh Ski Resort debate). In some cases there is absolute synonymy between the band government and the term First Nation; in other cases it's more political in tone, one way or the other. There's also reserves like Douglas Lake First Nation, aka the Upper Nicola Indian Band, who are a mix of Spaxomin (the local Syilx group) and Scw'exmx (the local Nlaka'pamux group), though mostly Spaxomin (usually Spahomin in English). The Shackan Indian Band's people are the Sxe'xn'x (a subgroup of or allied group to the Scw'exmx) and even though it might use Shackan First Nation the fact is that Shackan is an anglicization and Sxe'xn'x is the preferred form; as with Xwemelch'stn vs the usual older English Homulchesan. I know it's a problem with terminology: First Nations means ethnicity as well as governments; so the convention is that articles with "First Nation" or "Nation" in the title, unless pre-existing as ethno articles (as with some US ones) should be government articles, and the ethnicity per se be dealt with in the stand-alone name form, even being a First Nation in the cultural sense, rather than in a political-organization sense. The reason has to do with multi-ethnic reserves and also multi-ethnic tribal councils, and also cultural preferences about the articles these people are about. And included in the cultural preferences are terminologies such as the distinction between Llenlleney'ten and High Bar First Nation, or between Skwxwu7mesh and Squamish Nation. I guess I'll get around to drawing up that table of who fits with which article and which ethnic group and which tribal council(s), although more as a talkpage resource/refereence than conceivably as an article, although it might better help organize List of First Nations in British Columbia - the opening text of which I'm going to try to adjust to deal with some of the different definitions/usages, and undoing having List of First Nations governments in British Columbia refer to First Nations in British Columbia or List of First Nations in British Columbia (one of those refers to the other, I'm sure); the latter will be for the ethnicity articles, the governments list for the government ones; subtle distinction to non-First Nations people(s), but a highly important one for First Nations people(s) themselves, and that should be respected; that's also how it evolved at WikiProject indigenous peoples of North America; see its "articles" sub-talkpage for the various categories and, somewhere in there, the discussion which established the article/structure-hierarchy paradigm at play, the why of it all. Confusing, cumbersome, true, but occasionally the only way to sort things out. First Nations in the traditional sense are ethnic and social entities; they are not synonymous with band governments; nor is the band government synonymous with the community. Certainly not; it's state vs nation as a dichotomy, complicated into trichotomy and more because of the Indian Act regimes, which are only sometimes identical with traditional bodies/sociopolitical structure (e.g. Nuxalk from what I understan, and sometimes the use of "Nation" or "First Nation" in something's title is an assumed and not politically-supported form within the community's own cultural definitions, as with Skwxwu7mesh-Squamish Nation and any number of other examples I could trot out.Skookum109:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But the generic wikilink usage for nationalities goes Canadians of course (to Canada), though not Government of Canada, and if we're discussing Canadians as an ethnicity, we use Canadians-to-Canada, if we're talking about the country, we have Canada, and if we're talking about the state as a constitutional organism we have Government of Canada. You see how it's breaking down? Squamish Nation is the official name of the Skxwxu7mesh First Nations government-as-defined/created-by-the-Indian-Act, and it is because of this that User:Oldmanrivers has been insistent on using "Skwxwu7mesh" as the correct name, even in English, of the Squamish people, as we would ordinarily say in English (Squamish people redirects to Skwxwu7mesh. If there was a non-Indian Act Skwxwu7mesh government in operation, it would be, I think, Skwxwu7mesh-ullh Uxwuimuxw, and similar breakdowns exist elsewhere and have to. Just as Canadian redirects, in Wiki standard/guidelines, to Canada, the parallel is Skwxwu7mesh as an individual Squamish, or as an adjective; the parallel with Squamish Nation is more clearly Government of Canada as the Skwxwu7mesh snichim's name for Squamish territory, whatever that sorts out to; and it may or may not be the same as Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimuxw. Note - these are emerging official names in English, and there's similar usages emerging in St'at'imc and Secwepemc country.Skookum109:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit that people isn't the ideal term, but government isn't either. As we've discussed before, a First Nation is also a people, and a place, not just a government, and all your articles suggest otherwise. I have consistently disagreed with "what has been explained to me" so there is certainly no consensus.
I don't think the people and the government need to be equated, but Hungary is neither just a government, nor just a people either. The main page links to culture of Hungary, hungarian people, geography, language AND government. Why can't we do the same with the First Nations articles? And smaller countries that don't have full Culture of X, People of X and Geography of X combine all that information in the main country site. Your current plan seems to be to have articles on Government of Hungary, Hungarian people, Hungarian language, but no Hungary. I think that's crazy.
I'm glad you created Ulkatchot’en, but I suspect you're not going to create a complete article for every tiny nation's culture in BC, at least not any time soon. My suggestion is that, until the content is sufficient to create two decent articles, we don't create a shitty empty stub for every government, reserve, and people in the country. I'm well aware that there are differences, but I'm also aware that you don't actually know what they are. =) - TheMightyQuill19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as you can see, I've begun to create all ethnicity stubs where their names are available - to establish the hierarchy rather than just redlink it, and will create {{Tsilhqot'in peoples}} and {{Dakelh peoples}} (or {{Carrier peoples}} because of the Wet-suwet-en vs Dakelh issue) and you will note that their contents will differ from the Tribal Council-based templates ({{Tsilhqot'in First Nations}}, {{Carrier Chilcotin Tribal Council}}, {{Tsilhqot'in Tribal Council}}, {{Carrier Sekani Tribal Council}} and whatever else. Compare {{Nuu-chah-nulth-aht First Nations}}, vs {{Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples}} and {{Kwakwaka'wakw peoples}} vs {{Kwakwaka'wakw First Nations}} - in that last case you have groups such as the Danaxdaxw and the Awaetatla in the same band council, but historically they're separate and actually very hostile peoples, and separate ethnographically although now united; in that particular case there's documented wars between them, in fact. And comparing Hungary to BC's First Nations doesn't work because of the unusual nature of First Nations politics/legalities/a-constitutionalities here, as laid out in Talk:Stewart Phillip. Hungary does not have a parallel regime/culture which has never been brought into the Hungarian constitution, and there are not puppet/proxy governments administering Hungarian state funds to disenfranchised aboriginal peoples who are official wards of the state; it was you who made the Government of Canada comparison in the first place, remember. And the "what has been laid out before" derives not from my own agenda, but from an agenda I learned from the Indigenous peoples' project discussions. Note, again, there is a big difference between "people" and "government", and I strongly disagree that First Nation can mean a "place"; I gather you mean "First Nations territory" as synonymous, somehow with "First Nation" but we have yet to use that term in that way in Canada, i.e. with set "national" boundaries. And because people such as Oldmanrivers distinguish themselves from the Indian Act governments, then Wikipedia should respect that and somehow cope with it; the distinction between ethnicity and government articles is one of the ways to organize and follow that. After I'm done creating the various ethnicity stubs I'll make up that reference table I was talking about; or may convert the List of First Nations in British Columbia over to table format.Skookum119:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yet you've left Carey Price included in the Ulkatcho First Nation article. My point is that you may consider the Ulkatcho Band Council a puppet regime, but it doesn't make sense to call the Ulkatcho First Nation a puppet regime, since it is equally a people and a place. I don't know how you can disagree that First Nation means place, when all the First Nations reserves I've ever been to have big signs that say "Welcome to XXX First Nation." If you want to limit something to government, then create XXX Band Council articles, because government articles don't include historic territory or modern land ownership either. Government articles don't include information on the economy, or on private businesses run on the land controlled by that government. Nor are treaty claims limited to what is done by the Band Council or Tribal council, since there is obvious disagreement within most nations as to what should be done. Again, I'll retract my edits suggesting each First Nation is a people, it's not a people, but it's not a government either, it's a nation. There's no other reasonable synonym for nation. I agree that First Nations are different that other major nation states, but that is the closest comparison. - TheMightyQuill20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine, he can be removed from that article, then, which was the only one at the time (since I created it because of him, in fact). The "First Nation" terminology has to be defined in each and every case; and the ethnological meaning should be stated, but it is IMPORTANT to distinguish between the government and the ethnicity/people. These aren't my biases, but inbuilt realities from First Nations' own cultural-political consciousness. The intro sentence can run something like "the XXX First Nation is the name of a First Nations government etc. It can also refer to the XXX people themselves see "XXX". This is what I meant about it being something like a disambig page; there ARE distinct meanings; but the article-title convention is to have "Nation/First Nation" for the government articles, and without those designations for the othe articles, albeit stating in each case that "First Nation" has variable meanings, and in a certain context is the official name of the band government/Indian Act proxy, but also refers to the ethnicity/group as a whole in a very distinct and nowhere-near-synonymous sense. I'll refer you AGAIN to the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation comparison (see those talkpages, esp. OldManRivers' comments). We can't use all three meanings of "nation" here, as you're suggesting in your last bit; that's fudging; they have to be disambig'd or otherwise clearly stated as different contexts/usages.Skookum120:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's some examples of the confusion:
The "Shuswap First Nation" can mean either the Secwepemc people aka the Shuswap Nation (much larger, note, than the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council), or it can mean one band of that nation, the one located over in the East Kootenay south of Golden, who are also members of the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council.
"Nlaka'pamux Nation" is used by the Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, which also might call itself "the Nlaka'pamux First Nation" to the exclusion of other Nlaka'pamux governments, which are many. This is one reason why the cumbersome name Fraser Canyon Indian Administration exists, because there IS no unified Nlaka'pamux political entity with which to equate "nation" to "people". The Nlaka'pamux Nation, ethnographically speaking, includes the populations of the bands of the Nicola Tribal Association and also the Fraser Canyon Indian AdministrationAND thte Lytton First Nation. There is, conversely, no "Nicola Nation" although the Nicolas certainly described themselves as Nicolas, or as the Nicola people.
Kwakiutl First Nation is a band of Kwakwaka'wakw, not the whole of the Kwakwaka'wakw; for ethnicity I've used Kwagyulh to refer to the smaller group, which is in fact the namesake of the mistaken application of "Kwakiutl" for the whole of the Kwakwaka'wakw and Owekeeno/Heiltsuk/Haisla. *Other such examples of various kinds abound in other parts of the province, though in some cases - Okanagan Nation Alliance and Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council they're pretty much synonymous with the ethnic-nation (except in the latter case which includes that one Secwepemc, i.e. non-Ktunaxa, band). Untangling Carrier/Dakleh/Wet'suwet'en articles is going to be a labyrinth, I know that already. There's also a similar problem with Sto:lo, which is NOT synonymous with "Fraser River Salish" because the Kwantlens, Katzies, Kwayquitlams, Chehalis and someone else I'm not sure of are not part of the Sto:lo Nation. It's all a tangle, and the point is to keep things separate, so articles aren't simultaneously ethnicity, language and government/institutional ones, and also because of the micr0-macro nomenclature problem as with Shuswap First Nation - "Lillooet First Nation" can mean the Lillooet Nation-in-the-sense-of-Lillooet Tribal Council, it can mean the entire St'at'imc ethnicity, or it can mean the Lillooet Indian Band (T'it'kt First Nation). You can't just use the term and pretend it means everything at once; it has to be by context. Same as in one breath we say "the province" to mean British Columbia physically, in another sense socioculturally, and in another sense to mean the government-of-the day.Skookum121:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's complex and, more importantly, that each case is different. But if I can't pretend that First Nation automatically at once, you can't pretend it DOESN'T when in some cases (such as Ulkatcho First Nation perhaps) it does. Nation means nation. Government may be a part of it, but the Sto:lo Nation might well exist whether or not there was a Tribal Council. It's confusing, because the Tribal Council refers to itself as "Sto:lo Nation" even though it doesn't include all Sto:lo peoples, and it isn't even negotiating the land claims of all of its official member nations. But the term "council" denotes government, nation is something different. Read nation: A nation is a group of humans who assume that they share a common identity, and share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. AND The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. So nation is not the same as ethnicity either. - TheMightyQuill23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There are so many layers of meaning going on as to the context of "First Nation" that it's problematic, and that MUST be explained on First Nations in British Columbia, where I'll put a link to the new (and incomplete) List of First Nations governments in British Columbia and a parallel List of First Nations peoples in British Columbia, just to help the distinction along. I don't think, Quill, that you're getting it. The Kwayquitlams, Katzies, Whonnocks, Chehalis and (I think) the Yale Band are NOT Sto:lo and do not call themselves that; there is no "Sto:lo people" in an ethnographic sense, only Fraser River Coast Salish, an awkward term but which would include the un-Sto:lo groups. Then you have the case of the Douglas First Nation, who are ethnologically and linguistically St'at'imc, part of the In-SHUCK-Nation (a St'at'imc mini-tribal council), but who also belong to the Sto:lo Nation tribal council government but are NOT Sto:lo, or rather are not Fraser River Coast Salish, but rather a certain subbranch of the Lower St'at'imc of the Interior Salish. The Tsleil-waututh are ethnologically Skwxwu7mesh but are politically distinct, and so on. A Sto:lo Nation will NOT exist if there was not a Tribal Council unless it were to evolve as a nation in the sense you're talking about, and also constitutes itself as a state, rather than a legislated colonialist proxy-legacy regime; that many of the member bands of the Sto:lo Nation are themselves "Nations" or "First Nations" by self-definition complicates it even further; each one is a nation, but all together are a political nation; but it is not a political nation which includes all of the ethnic group. The same applies with Tsilhqot'in, Nicola, Nlaka'pamux, St'at'imc, Secwepemc and many other tribal councils, which do not include all of the ethnic group and may include other ethnic groups, but still present themselves as, e.g. "St'at'imc Nation" when the member bands and collective government of the Lillooet Tribal Council is meant only. "St'at'imc Nation" does not include the Nequatque and In-SHUCK-chf councils/governments or peoples, but "St'at'imc" does. There is no way to equate Sto:lo Nation with all Fraser River Salish; there is no way to equate St'at'imc Nation - because of its use in a political sense, by one organization which others have broken away from - now includes the In-SHUCK-ch or Nequatque. The Alkali Lake and High Bar bands are both Secwepemc and Tsilhqot'in, but belong to neither "nation", being nations in their own rights (and minds). So the layer cake has to be organized somehow, and the pattern emergent on List of First Nations governments in British Columbia is pretty self-explanatory, although I may get rid of the Alternate Names column and find another way to deal with that (Tsleil-wau-tuth Nation vs Burrard Band e.g.), and also of the population columns which is too much bother to research and irrlevant to the point of the list. But the band, people, language, tribal council breakdown is clear enough, and certain items already there help illustrate the need for different article-categories; the explanation in each article of the potential different meaning can be expressed in a dab line or some other explanatory device; but the article separation, and the reasons for them are more obvious the more of the articles you work with, despite overlaps in information. I can't and don't buy into the equation of First Nation meaning band government vs First Nation meaning a national group. It's a non-starter, and a matter of different definitions and contexts; differences which have to be explained, but cannot be ignored.Skookum102:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah heck why not, do America Nation-state too while you're at it ;) OK, so we're at a bit of an impasse as to where to direct specific 'First Nation' designations, if I read the thread correctly? The idea we seem to agree on is that there should be separation between the gov't/people, duh... but it's where to redirect the Nation thingy. I think the page for each people can be taken to mean nation within the definition TheMightyQuill mentioned for Nation already, no? Almost every article I've read here does, albeit mostly without the type of precise border details found in nation/people articles such as Canada, because no one's supplied that information yet and there's the odd dispute. It begs the question, say in the Nisga'a example, of someone adopted into their Nation.. how do they fit into this little wiki-conundrum? Well, why not create/re-name the gov't pages to 'Government of ' whichever people, and redirect the 'Band Council/Tribal Council' titles to that page. This way it's uniform and clearly differentiates between the two, and in the first line of this page, mention the actual name 'Nisga'a Lisims' for example...(The governing body of the Nisga'a people is called the Nisga'a Lisims Government) just a thought. If it is a built-in redirect then it is taken to mean the same thing. In turn, when the governments style themselves as 'So,in,so First Nation', that page will unambiguously direct to the government page. But when the government doesn't style themselves this way (as in the case of Nisga'a Lisims), then 'Nisga'a Nation' and 'Nisga's First Nation' can both go to disambig pages. Bottom line, two types of pages one for gov't one for people, with the necessary redirects on a case by case basis, and a disambig for things like "Gitksan First Nation" and "Gitksan Nation". I don't think this proposal meddles too much with the good work Skookum is doing on the lists--Keefer402:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So in summary, and for clarity-- my proposal, using the Nisga'a example... Two pages: one being Nisga'a, the other being Government of the Nisga'a, with immediate mention of Nisga'a Lisims and a redirect from there. Both "Nisga'a Nation" and "Nisga'a First Nation" would be disambigged to offer both of the above.Keefer402:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thing is they nearly all use Nation or First Nation in their government titles, and have alternate names as either an Indian Band or a Tribal Council, depending on which. This is why the title I used for [[tl|Kwakwaka'wakw peoples}} - which can eventually include documented but extinct groups, some of which never came into being as bands, or as in the Mowachaht-Muchalaht case and Danaxdaxw-Awaetatla are a union of two different ethnographic groups. Small-n nation, fine, but the capitalized form has been "co-opted" by Band Governments while at the same time having an ethnographic context; Nisga'a Nation, Gitxsan Nation, St'at'imc Nation, Sto:lo Nation are governments for the nation of the Nisga'a, the nation of the Gitxsan, and particular groups of the nations of St'at'imc and Fraser River Salish (it may be that Kwayquitlams and Kwantlens etc may be occasionally, or inappropriately, referred to as Sto:lo, but the Chehalis never are. Anyway, the point is that the "First Nation" title/designation is nearly always an option for "Indian Band" and they're generally used interchangeable; Seton Lake Indian Band, Seton Lake First Nation. But their nation-as-nation grouping is St'at'imc, although the particular people are Tsalalh'mc and they, too, are a separate First Nation within the larger St'at'imc Nation, which again is not the same thing as the nation of the St'at'imc. There are parallel examples all across the province; and it's nearly an ironclad rule about "Alkali Lake First Nation" and "Alkali Lake Indian Band"; in most cases of newly-created articles I went with the most recent incarnation online in various directories, i.e. as to whether Indian Band or First Nation, but at some time or other, and probably simultaneously on occasion, they've used the other one of whichever they're listed as now. Separating all that out from "First Nations" in an ethnographic sense is the context of what's at debate here; the existing convention, which granted *I* established (very much in response to OldManRivers' objections to Squamish Nation as an imposed and artificial name that is a construct supplanted on the Skxwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw, which would be the name of a Skwxwu7mesh state, as Nisga'a Lisims if of the Nisga'a state), is to respect the band governments' desire to be called First Nations, and that of tribal councils to be called Nations, e.g. Okanagan Nation Alliance, which does include all Okanagans, even the American group, whereas Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council and Sto:lo Nation etc do NOT include all their respective "nations" (using the quotes to emphasize lower-case n, not to degrade that meaning, the ethnograhpic one, only to specify it).Skookum102:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
True. Thing is, perception of the term is widely disambiguous among people in general regardless of background. And these are the people who are searching Wikipedia. Separating the ethnographic sense from the FN sense makes perfect sense, but I'd opt for a more generic 'Government Of...'. But then I've heard conversations between people (a Haisla guy and a Nisga'a guy) go like this: "What nation are you from?", "I'm Nisga'a". Someone self-identified (to me the white guy mind you) as Sto:lo last month... I'm just starting to think disambigs are the way to go here when it comes to 'Nation'. That's about all I have to say about it. Whatever happens I think we're all pretty much on the same page, like you said common usage is interchangeable. --Keefer403:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for a dab line, or mini-disambigs, and I've been toying with the syntax; I find the wording on Talk:Squamish Nation and its counterpart to be a bit POV, but also to the point. The basics are "this page is for the government of the xxx. For an article on their history and culture see etc.", and vice-versa, with the full explanation of the different meanings in the First Nations and First Nations in British Columbia articles/intros.Skookum103:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. A second read-through of your earlier response (lower case/upper-case) and it's starting to make more sense. The 'perception/public interpretation of the term' issue is still a concern I think, but I see through your recent additions such as Cook Ferry First Nation the rhyme and reason for keeping it is the title rather than disambig. (upper/lower case). Ok, I'm fizzled out... actually all this talk about designations I feel like I'm contributing to dehumanizing all concerned. It feels too much like a parody of something very bad. ick. Necessary I guess though for wiki purposes... later--Keefer403:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with Keefer that all this categorization is dehumanizing at best and neo-colonial at worst. Let me pitch this another way. What if an XXX Nation page acts as a sort of disambiguation page which links to
an ethnicity page (which contains culture, language, etc, like French people),
the standard format in the Indigenous project, or one of them anyway, is exactly that format, w/wo parentheses and maybe, with parentheses, the word "tribe" instituted (you'll find "tribal" here in BC, but not usually "tribe"). Thing is that names like Secwepemc, Skxwxu7mesh, Nlaka'pamux, Muchalaht, Ditidaht etc all contain particles meaning "people", so "people" is redundant unless it's to be assumed that these names are to be also used as adjectives; it seems unnecessary; there are other cases where the usual name does NOT include the word/concept "people" - Sto:lo is one of them. Anyway, with whatever title - and I'm going for the simple form without "people", though there are pages like Nicola people already, especially if the translation of the indigenous name includes "people". "French" doesn't include "people" inside it the way "Secwepemc" means "Shuswap people", or rather "people of Secwep" (which is all the better if you know it's pronounce ShaKWAP).Skookum1
Yes, fine, I wasn't suggesting the same name format as French people, just a page that includes all aspects of culture. As for including history under culture, it could work. I would guess that for most indigenous peoples, their history and culture are more closely linked than, for instance, the History of France and the Culture of France. On the other hand, we should be careful not to limit a history to only "traditional" or pre-/early-contact history and ignore more recent developments. Obviously if a good history is written it would outgrow the main article and require an article of its own, but I don't know of any article like that yet. TheMightyQuill21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point of the separate government articles, including particulars of its other agencies, e.g. Upper St'at'imc Language Authority is an autonomous body under the aegis of the Lillooet Tribal Council (aka St'at'imc Nation), and there are the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police and the Lower St'at'imc Education Authority (or is it health authority?) and so on. Similarly there would/should also be articles for treaty groups, like the Te'Mexw Treaty Association and the Winalalagis Treaty Group, but these of course don't have the disambig problem - except for ones like Maa-nulth First Nations (not a tribal council but a treaty group of only some of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council member bands. In cases where there is e.g. a Shuswap Nation, ethnographically speaking, there is also the smaller Shuswap First Nation/Shuswap Indian Band over by Invermere, and of course either of the Shuswap tribal councils might refer to itself as the Shuswap Nation (and that is, of course, part of the name of the largest, Shuswap Nation Tribal Council). So XXX First Nation or XXX Nation might have to be, occasionally (or consistently?), XXX First Nation (band government) or XXX Nation (band government) - and here using "band government" instead of "government", in order to distinguish the special status, and cases like the Nisga'a Lisims (and of which there'll theoretically be more of), of Indian Act government; as in some cases, e.g. Lil'wat Nation, that term is used by the "radical hardcore" who do not recognize the existence of Canada; and in terms of their laws and history, it doesn't, except as a nuisance. So while the poeple of Lil'wat - Mt Currie, do form a nation (properly Lil'wat'ul - /-'ul/ being something like /-imc/ but not quite) - but the band government is nearly always the Mount Currie Indian Band/First Nation, while the term Lil'wat Nation is often used locally by and in reference to the traditionalist elements within the Mt Currie people. Lillooet Nation is near-always going to be meant ethnographically, or in ref to the LTC (the tribal council); but Lillooet First Nation will tend to mean the same thing as Lillooet Indian Band, unless used by someone outside the area or unfamiliar with its usages. Don't mean to go on, just elaborating on the idea of XXX (First) Nation (band government); presumably XXX Indian Band (band government) would be redundant, except in the context where "the band" can refer to the community rather than its governing institution(s).Skookum1
Shit, I meant that to say XXX First Nation rather than XXX Nation. My whole suggestion was that XXX Nation be used as the disambiguation page. At any rate, you seem to agree with having the multiple articles, but didn't respond to my idea of a separate disambig article containing all of these other articles in Wikipedia:Summary style. Please comment. - TheMightyQuill21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess so...but I presumed that would go in the "people" article; depending on the detail available I guess, which post-Contact can be considerable; so there'd be a condensed version on the main people page, a shorter condensed version on the government page, and a "main page" template on each section to the History article....hmmmm.Skookum1
and possibly, XXX land(?) (with details on historic territory, overlap with neighbours, and current reserve land.
This is the point of cases where there are either already Indian Reserve articles, i.e. Indian Reserves written about in the same way as any other institution, such as a municipality, and as you'll see on Ulkatcho First Nation I made a stab at enumerating reserves; such lists and stats on hectares-per-person and such can all be included; I'd say each band government page should list the reserves it "runs", and in some cases the reserve itself is notable (or at least an article already exists, cf. the main category); there's also bands with multiple communities on the same reserve, and/or also collections of reserves. I'd say in the same vein as the distinction between Indian Act and non-Indian Act "Nations" there's a simliar distinction between traditional-territory articles and Indian Act-defined territories; perhaps there should be Gitsxan Territory or Skxwxwu7mesh Territory as geographic/historical articles?Skookum107:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather than being a simple list of links to these other related articles, the XXX Nation could include a summary of these other articles. IF these articles do not yet exist, the summary could remain on the XXX Nation page until the individual article are created, thus avoiding 4 pages with two sentences or a bunch of empty subsections. Any problems with this? This avoids confining the ethnicity to just the government's definition, or from restricting the definition of nation to just government and ignoring the population and territory. Any takers? - TheMightyQuill07:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason, I came back to continue reading this... The Nation disambig concept makes sense and seems in line with other precedents. However, as Skookum has noted, the potential lands articles will either have to be split up into traditional and act-defined articles or face an unhappy co-existence in the same article, with clear delineation between them. 'History of' would have a seperate article only once enough information to justify an article is gathered and written. And the 'people' article wouldn't make sense as Skookum1 has pointed out, because it is already incorporated in many of the names (ie: Gitksan - People of the Misty River)(So Gitksan People='People of the Misty River People'?!). Drop that and I think we have a workable disambig template. Together with oldmanrivers templates for the actual article pages below, we may have a working structure. There will be quandaries that arise on a case by case basis but the principle here seems sound.--Keefer408:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course a lot of pages would get ridiculus, but my suggestion to Skookum1 is:
If you want to get really awful about it. The first example would work for tribal affilications, inter-tribal organizations, and etc, such as "Kwagiutl District Council". As for termenology, no nation, Nation, First Nations, first nations AFTER the name of the people. It's a Anglo-Canadian POV because Anglo-Canadians put that term on these Indigenous peoples. OldManRivers03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retraction...
I'm quickly being convinced of your organization plan, and especially because Oldmanrivers' template below looks good. I still retain my complaint that XXX First Nation is not just a government, as it also refers, in common usage, to the territory. So I guess my main problem is the wording "XXX First Nation is a government..." when it's a nation not a government. Can we find some solution to that? - TheMightyQuill22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen small-case "first nation" in print a lot lately; what if we used "XXX first nation" for the non-government article, with it side-by-side with the government one, with an accompanying explanation that this is a Wikipedia convention only and that capitalized forms are in common use for all meanings.Skookum107:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your coming around, I have to clarify for you that "XXX First Nation" does not refer to territory in the sense of conventional English "nation" referring to a territory (when it does). The dual context here is on the one hand the government institution which has adopted the First Nation designation, on the other the sense of nation-community that underlies and preceded band status. Yes, you do see signs saying "you are entering the Lil'wat Nation" or "you are entering traditional territory of XXX Nation" but NB that, say in the Lil'wat case, that sign is found (when it's up) only at Mt Currie, and not at the boundary of Lil'wat Territory (around Daisy Lake). As you'll find as you dig around, there are no precise boundaries, or not usually anyway, and many cases of overlap (Chilcotin and Lillooet hunting territories overlap in the Bridge River basin, those of the Mt Currie Lillooet and the Lytton Nlaka'pamux in the Stein, border places like Pavilion and Port Douglas identify with two cultures, as well as two tribal councils; and in fact the location of Port Douglas was Chehalis-dominated until the gold rush, with the St'at'imc limited a few miles upstream away from raids off Harrison Lake...). Historical linguistic boundaries are also irrelevant or out-dated now; linguistic maps continue to show the presence of the Nicola Athapaskans, but they were extinct in the 1870s; in the 17th Century the Sekani were in the North Thompson, but were driven out by the Shuswap (under Nicola's great-grandfather, who was actually Okanagan, but of Spokane name/origin...), and the Nicola Athapaskans were in the Keremeos and Princeton areas (no one knows where they were a few centuries before that); at some point the Interior Salish group connected to the Nuxalk (who are not Coast Salish, apparently) but this contiguity was disrupted when the Tshilhqot'in moved in from the north at some point (despite the usual "from time immemorial" incantation in political statements). Any context for territory descriptions - and again, the meaning and application of territory is different in the FN context, specifically that they can overlap - should just be in the ethno/people/culture article, and IR maps would be in the Indian Band/First Nations government articles. And again, I have to emphasize that linguistic divisions do not work well; not just because of dual-culture tribal councils, and fragmented-nation multiple tribal councils (the Nlaka'pamux being the most extreme case, so far anyway), but also because linguistic areas overlap; there's a good FN-gov collaboration map somewhere of language areas, and in their texts there they emphasize that the linguistic boundaries do not and cannot be taken as implying anything politically or re treaty claims. Only in some cases, such as the Gitxsan, are there precise territorial boundaries attached to individiual chieftaincies. Anyway, the growing List of First Nations governments in British Columbia should give you an idea of why the ethnic articles have to be separated from the government ones.Skookum122:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum, my friend, you don't need to write a whole novel just to tell me that territories overlap and linguistic divisions are problematic, especially when it's something I already know. =) I also don't see why you keep bringing up tribal councils, since we're not talking about tribal councils, or why you finish by suggesting gov't articles should be separate from ethnic articles, when I've already agreed to this.
Because, tribal councils either often embody nations, or presume to convey the whole - as with Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, which in a Nlaka'pamux=Nlaka'pamux Nation formulation doesn't embrace the whole of the Nlaka'pamux people. Similarly Lillooet Tribal Council/St'at'imc Nation. Tribal councils I'm including in this discussion/context because they're constructs of band governments, and therefore Indian Act-derived, although expressive (sometimes) of national identity (hard to claim with Carrier-Chilcotin or Carrier-Sekani, and again re fragmented/multiple councils). One reason I'm laying this out here is because sooner or later someone is going to come looking for the reasons why; you may know, but others don't. And since you do know, i.e. about overlapping linguistic and territorial divisions, then you should realize that the term "First Nation" doesn't have an adequate territorial application/context. THAT is what I was trying to say; and yes, I finished underscoring the main point, "even though you'd already agreed to it". You hadn't exactly, for one thing, but for another, I was simply making a summation/emphasis of the central point, since I'd covered others. And this isn't a book; I just can't write in point-form.Skookum123:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In those cases when a tribal council uses the name "XXX Nation" it would probably make sense to name the article "XXX Nation (Tribal Council)" to be clear what we're talking about. - TheMightyQuill00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is this: I know from experience, and you seem willing to concede, that "XXX First Nation" is used as an indication of place as well as a title for government. It's really irrelevant whether it is used to describe simply reserve lands or traditional territory, because my argument is that it is incorrect to begin every article with "XXX First Nation is a government" when we both know it also indicates, in some way, a place. - TheMightyQuill23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As an expression of place, e.g. "Squamish Nation", in the context of Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw (or St'at'imc Ucwalmicw, for a parallel), i.e. as the territory of the Skwxwu7mesh people, then "nation" is not the appropriate term (for the territory) as the Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw (the shadow traditional constitution/government, essentially), while it has boundaries, is not a constituted state (neither, properly, is the Province of British Columbia but that's another matter); and back to another point somewhere above, the Skwxwu7mesh article can have a description of Skwxwu7mesh Territory, (including explaining the overlaps with Lil'wat, Shishalh, Tsleil-wau-tuth, Kway-quit-lam and Musqueam). "XXX First Nation" refers to the people on the one hand, the imposed governmental body on the other; the "territory of the people" would be the name of the physical place (OldManRivers did supply us with one, once). "Nation" is a troublesome enough word in Canadian political milieus, and doesn't have an adequately-defined meaning in English; and any of those standard English meanings do not fully address what the term has come to mean in BC, and what it means to people like OldManRivers. "Nlaka'pamux First Nation" is in fact a redundancy, as "people of Nlaka'p-" is the meaning; the "nation" in the ethnographic sense would be something like Nlaka'pamux-ull (-ull is the Sta't'imc ending, I don't know the Nlaka'pamux, meaning something like "we are the Nlaka'pamux", and the "incipient state" would be Nlaka'pamux Uxwuimixw (using the Skwxwu7mesh snichim equivalent to whatever the Nlaka'pamuxtsin is). If you want the equivalent for "Nation" or "First Nation", then it's more like "Nlaka'p people", "Nlaka'p nation", "Nlaka'p (First) Nation" (note caps). I'll leave it to OldManRivers to comment on the territory issue, but for myself I'm emphatic that there is no sense of "nation" in the sense of a territory having boundaries; that terminology in FN usage is "Territory of the XXX Nation" or "Territory of the XXX" ("XXX Territory", "Territory of the XXX", with "Traditional Territory" substituted in there often enough.Skookum123:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you be emphatic, when you know what I'm saying is true. You know you've seen signs that say "Welcome to XXX First Nation." I have friends that talk about "life at Wet'suwet'en First Nation" - AT denotes place. It's common usage. Just because you don't believe it should be used this way, or is somehow insufficient doesn't change the fact that it IS used this way BY the people who actually live there. I've never been to Squamish First Nation, nor do I know any Skwxwu7mesh people, so I can't speak to that. Maybe it's different there, but that doesn't solve the problem. - TheMightyQuill00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a joke I remember. I don't want to tell the whole joke, but the ending is something along the lines of a geenie saying "Actualy, instead of trying to fix all the "First Nation"'s stuff in BC, he would rather solve peace in the middle east. It's actually a pretty funny joke, but you get the idea. Some nations do, some nations don't. Either way, it's POV if you. The lingo isn't mutualy translatable to all Indigenous languages in BC either, but here is an example
Skwxwu7mesh is who I am. (Equivilant Hi, my name is Stephen Harper, and I'm Canadian.
Xwemelch'stn is where I am from. (Equivilant Hi, my name is Gordon Campbell, and I'm from British Columbia.)
It's similar, except there is also the matter of Coast Salish and Kwakwaka'wakw and others. You probably know this, but what I'm saying does not apply to all Indigenous people in BC, nor is what you are saying
But for naming titles to seperate from the articles like Skwxwu7mesh and Squamish Nation, we need to have all the Indigenous people in BC have the names of their people, in their spelling. There are 198 indian band in BC, but there is not that many Indigenous groups (Skwxwu7mesh, Tsiel-waututh, Namgis, WASNEC, Ahousaht, Heiltsuk and many more, WITHOUT anything after that (see Skwxwu7mesh). THEN, just like Skwxwu7mesh, we had links and talk about the tribal governments. I know there are a lot of pages that have no been created yet, but hey, something to work on. THEN, we can do a page Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and talking about all the major groups with brief bio's and links to all the groups from the Northwest Coast. Similar pages can be made for other groups. As for the land thing, it's kind of weird. There are places like [[Haida Gwaii], but it's not similar around BC right. We never had a name for our territory. It was just Skwxwu7mesh temixw, but that's reall incorrect and only been used recently for land claims and dealing with the government. (temixw = land. uxwumixw = village). So, to put it simply, there is no Canada, in the name of a massive territory. There Canada the nation, and Canadians the people, but European does not translate well over to many Indigenous languages. (SIDE NOTE) A friend who's getting his PhD at UBC told me about the main difference. I wanted to mention because it's relevant to this discussion. He said, European languages are noun based, where many Indigenous languages from this area are verb based. Place names, terminology, etc, vs. action words, things people do, etc. No wonder you all want terms for Indigenous peoples places, people, things, but it simply and probably doesn't exist. OldManRivers10:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Heheh, I like the joke, and really, colonialism and murder in BC goes back a lot longer that the arab israeli conflict, so I guess that shouldn't be surprising. I agree that it's complicated, but I want get my head around it. The Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish Nation division is clear enough, and I have zero problems with that split. It makes perfect sense, since it's a large community with a clear cultural and linguistic separation, precisely because the government forced an amalgamation of many different villages.
They speak Dakelh/Carrier and may identify as Dakelh, but they may identify as Carrier which culturally (as Skookum has recently pointed out to me) is different than Dakelh because it includes those who speak Babine and Witsuwit'en. Is their "people" article going to be Dakelh, Carrier people or Saik'uz? Is it fair to lump them with all other Dakelh as one homogenous culture, or, even worse, with other people who don't even speak the same language? And if you give Saik'uz their own "people" article, then you should naturally extend this to every one of the 18 other bands/nations that can be considered "Carrier"? The Canadian government forced the name and government Stoney Creek Indian Band on the people but that doesn't mean they didn't exist as a cohesive group before hand. Was the name change to Saik'uz First Nation forced by the government, a chosen return to a pre-contact name, or a conscious reaction by the Saik'uz against the Canadian government in order to demand treatment as a nation, rather than a band?
Furthermore, is their territory the reserve land they have been forced into, the larger territory of all Dakelh people, or the larger territory they are negotiating for as part of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council? Does Saik'uz First Nation refer only to the band council, or also (as the road signs and common usage indicate) to the reserve/larger territory and even the people? There is undoubtedly some other Dakelh word for the territory and the village as well.
Basically, I have no answers to any of these questions, and I'm sure if I went to the Saik'uz and asked them, I'd get pretty big variety of answers. Simply accepting the official terminology of the government might just take their pov over that of other members. I'm worried that creating a template and using it for all the people of the northwest coast might ignore a lot of the different situations. - TheMightyQuill19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, since the question of the existence of Canada was brought up, I had a question about that too... with the few articles on particular nations I've written, I've tried to describe their territorial location in terms of geography, or at least, in proximity to other cities, but avoided writing "in British Columbia, Canada." I'm concerned that if you say, for instance, that Skwxwu7mesh territory is part of British Columbia, that's a POV statement that further undermines the claim that Skwxwu7mesh territory is unceded land: that BC/Canada have no legal claim to it/jurisdiction over it. This was the whole point of creating Category:Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast, wasn't it? To avoid forcing indigenous peoples into national boundaries which they may or may not accept? So why do the reverse in the article text? - TheMightyQuill23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Template for Indigenous
I know we talked about this breifly, but I cannot remember what we came up with. I'm trying to think of a good template for the First Nation's pages, and the ethnic/cultural pages. I created pre-contact and post-contact to the Skwxwu7mesh page, which would probably be best since a lot of traditions still carry on (although history books would have you belief we're all dead). I came up with:
I wanted to add to this list for some constancy among the pages. There are also the actual government institutions such as Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, and other Tribal Councils or tribal affiliations, which are political institutions representing a varying degree of native peoples from different groups, from different blah blah blah.
Anything else we should add? Or a place to talk about this with more people. I get the notion at Project Indigenous Peoples of North America, there isn't many people that understand BC clearly, but anywhere for forum on this would be great. (Still learning how to navigate wikipedia.) Thanks for any help OldManRivers04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the best spot for discussing it, although possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia too. We need more involvement from local communities for sure on all of this stuff. I guess things like clans/hereditary chiefs would fall under 'culture' or possibly warrant their own section? Heck, I'd like to see stuff on things like food, attire, homes... I guess it'd all fit under something you've already got. Let ya know if I think of anything else.--Keefer409:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean "nation" in the table header? That was my attempt to address your concerns; in the title "First Nations governments" is obvious enough; "Ethnicity"? It's a sliding scale; the Tsalalh'mc are a nation within the St'at'imc Nation (actually within the Lc'lc'mc, the Lakes Lillooet, which until mid-19th Century was a separate identity within the St'at'imc; mind you so, still, are Cayoose Creek, Lillooet and Bridge River Bands i.e. separate identities, within the "metropolitan Lillooet" native community). If Carcross/Tagish is in that way it was my mistake; I was thinking of the Gwi'chin and Han and other Yukon peoples, who are in the Dene group (as are, by their own determination, the Tshilqot'in and Dakelh and other Athapaskans in BC). If there are mistakes in who belongs where, by all means fix them; I was copy-pasting at high speed, transferring link-names from other pages, and there are doubtless mistakes here and there; I'd put Union Bar in Nlaka'pamux originally, but it's non-Sto:lo Halqemeylem-speaking (that is to say, Fraser River Coast Salish or Fraser River Salish). As to the labelling of the table header, if you have something better to put in place of "nation" in that field (Kwakwaka'wakw, Haida, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc, not local ethno-nations like Esketemc or Tsalalh'mc or Spaxomin, who belong in the other column). I'm thinking the way to deal with the alternate names is to ditch that column and make multiple entries, so that the entire thing is sortable; also "Language 1" and "Language 2" so those are also sortable. I may also have town/locations wrong, or in some cases didn't bother (e.g. 'Namgis because I couldn't remember if it's Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Sayward, or what).Skookum102:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have a better suggestion, but that article is using "nation" in the sense of "a people" (rather than government or territory) which is how this whole discussion started. The problem with using "culture" or "ethnicity" is that the 1969 White Paper proposed eliminated Indian Status for indigenous people in favour of considering simply "ethnic groups." This would have made Secwepemc-Canadian no different from Ukrainian-Canadian. Obviously, this was pretty insulting to most indigenous peoples, many of whom considered themselves nations rather than simple ethnic groups. Nations have the right to negotiate with Canada as equals, whereas ethnicities or groups of people do not. - TheMightyQuill03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
List of First Nations peoples in British Columbia - with spare columns for "Component Nations" (with "Nations" there being the local-ethnicity); basically the same table as overleaf but laid out by local people/ethnic group-name; this will allow for inclusion of the Nicola Athapaskans and other extinct groups also.
List of First Nations communities in British Columbia - including non-Reserve communities and towns where there are strong reserve agglomerations (Lillooet, Hazelton, Merritt, Duncan, Campbell River etc) this one could have a population - numbers and percentage;
I'd already made {{Kwakwaka'wakw peoples}} and {{Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples}} but just tried a different, perhaps better, title: {{Peoples of the Secwepemc Nation}}. A similar retitling of the governments ones, currently {{Kwakwaka'wakw First Nations}} could be {{Governments of the Kwakwaka'wakw Nation}}. Except that "Kwakwaka'wakw Nation" is never (usually) put that way, and IIRC has political overtones (as being an organizational name separate from the Laich-kwil-tach-Comox-Kwagyulh formation of the Kwakiutl District Council; well, which doesn't include the Kwagyulh/Kwakiutl First Nation any more (the Fort Rupert Band). Maybe {{Governments of the St'at'imc people}} might be a better format; because in that case, as elsewhere, "St'at'imc Nation means a particular tribal council, or can (also Nlaka'pamux Nation, Kwakiutl Nation, Shuswap Nation, just for starters). Anyway, I think the new title(s) might work better, and be less confusing, and also address the concept of ethnolinguistic nations spanning several smaller nation-groups.Skookum103:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
How about removing people, nation, and all those extra words to the end. Just Kwakwaka'wakw. Just Skwxwu7mesh. Just Secwepemc. OldManRivers04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. We can probably fit all the information, cultural, history, government, territory, reserve in one article. I'd support it, but I'm not sure what we do with something like Alexandria First Nation - we can't move to Alexandria because it's already taken. We could try to figure out the name of each people in their own language. - TheMightyQuill07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It'll have a name in Tsilhqot'in - or rather they will. I remember seeing "E?sdilageh" or something like that somewhere - evidently a Tshilqot'in pastiche of Alexandria, something like Samadlin by way of origin, which was their adaptation of Sieur MacLean, their name for Donald Maclean (fur trader) as overheard from his francophone underlings. And it's important to note that I think that's a placename, not a people-name; the people-name would be more like E?sdilageh'tin, at least if that's a Tsilhqot'in name and it might be Carrier or Shuswap instead of French in origin. In the {{Peoples of the Secwepemc Nation}} template - and yes, that's redundant as you've noted OMR (Secwep-people peoples) I'm certain some of the native names, garnered from the Shuswap Nation website as I recall, are place rather than people names; I amended the only one I could be sure of enough to change it, the last one (Tsk'weylecw'mc (Pavilion Indian Band folks - Tsk'waylacw'mc in St'at'imcets, which come to think of I probably should have the main article not the redirect the St'at'imcets spelling...). So anyway, yeah, there's a name for each local people, as has come out as a spin-off from Shackan First Nation to Sxe'xn'x, who previously I thought were Scw'exmx or maybe are a part of them; but I know there's place-specific people names throught St'at'imc/Lil'wat territory, and elsewhere. As far as I can tell, those on {{Kwakwaka'wakw peoples}} are all people-names, but OMR (who's part Kwakwaka'wakw AIRC) can maybe verify that. All the -aht endings on Nuu-chah-nulth-aht names mean "people" (and the -ah ending on Makah), and "Aht" was in fact the name for all of what later on became referred to as the Nootkas; "Nuu-chah-nulth" is of modern invention, relatively; Nuu-chah-nulth-aht ("people along the outside (coast)") I used in that case because it implies the whole ethnic group, rather than just the Nuu-chah-nulth (which means by itself only "Along the outside (coast)" om the Pacheedaht stand separate from, and the Ditidaht are slightly linguistically different....but then again, so probably are the Kyuquots and Tshesahts etc.). Anyway I'll find the Tsilhqot'in name for Alexandria - and also the name for the Chilcotin language itself - by writing someone and just asking; the Shuswap Nation site is very well-developed and written so I imagine their webmaster might be fairly forthcoming.Skookum109:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, how many individual First Nations are there in BC? We're going to create a government page for each, plus at least one "people" page for each one, plus tribal councils, plus larger cultural "people/nation" pages for each group (like St'at'imc). That's a lot of work to do. TheMightyQuill01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, without meaning to boast, I've done about half of what was left to do - just stubs mostly, and organizational considerations; and yeah it was a lot of work; I haven't yet begun to sort out Carrier Country and the North, or get the general structure of the Gitxsan, Tsimshian and Nisga'a articles coordinated with the rest; and there's really hardly anything on the Haida. But as for figures, we have something like 1/4 of North America's indigenous population, or did at one point but I think it's still true, and somethng like 70, or is it 170, languages/peoples. Even if only counting "major" ones, depending on how you lump people together (see my comments about the Central Coast on OldManRivers' talk page - as there's isolates here and there, and at some level of information there's also extinct peoples and villages; yeah, it's a lot of work. Ths was a civilization, effectively, and there's a lot of material on it that's never been put all in one place before, albeit in condensed form necessarily. I think OldManRivers mentioend 238 band governments, or a number resembling that. Most of the work now is writing good material on top of the stubs that have been established; but that takes local input; maybe others like OldManRivers will surface; someone did in the Nicola area - User:SSwakum or User:Sswakum I think and I've seen one or two others where clearly local input has come on board, but not as dedicatedly as OMR has so generously. Trick will be to find someone in Alert Bay or Bella Bella or Masset or Williams Lake or Smithers or wherever who has the time and writing/inclination to document their areas; maybe we could recruit studI don't think it's appropriate that only ethnological materials be present for living peoples; they're not stuffed, after all. Anyway, yeah, there's a lot of articles - especially when you add in bios, as has begun in some areas, both for current/modern people and frontier/hsitorical ones - but what else can you expect, given the famous 500 Nations tag for the continent (I'd put that figure higher) and not just the population density here but he cultural density; with individual languages distinct effectively from village to village in some areas...and a patchwork/crazyquilt of band governments and tribal councils, and as re treaties those inside the treaty process, those in the queue, and those boycotting it; other organizations like thet UBCIC also need documentation as articles, again even only as stubs. Yeah, it IS a lot of work; I'm just trying to leave a structure that will make it easier to build; but I've wound up building quite a bit of it; effectively other than the Georgia Strait-South Island-Fraser River template and related stubs the southern part of the province is now fully stubbed, or nearly almost anyway (thngs keep on surfacing here and there).Skookum102:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that category needed creation; not so important for towns and villages I guess. Also Category:First Nations communities in British Columbia strkes me as needed, perhaps as a retitling of Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia; as not all native communities are on-reserve; and various reserves have multiple communities within them; and there are towns that get an "FN" template but are still non-FN towns (e.g. Hazelton, Lillooet); Category:First Nations communities in British Columbia also helps deal with stuff like Camchin and Xwemelch'tsn, which are traditional community names, and not reserves per se, although they are on, or partly on in Camchin's case, reserve land. Actual articles on reserves per se are few and far between, and the articles in the cat at present are largely titled as towns, not as, e.g. "Shalalth, British Columbia" instead of Slosh Indian Reserve No. 1 (and No. 1a, 2 etc.). For most situations now I'm adding both the FN reserves cat as well as the unincorporated settlements cat (unless there's an incorporation, as at Lillooet)Skookum122:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi noticed all the hard categorization work you've been doing today. Noticed a redlink to Hydroelectric development in this one, tried to find actual category but couldn't.. bot will probably kill it, but just thought I'd let ya know. On that topic, I vaguely remember some type of hydro project being ballyhooed around for the area, but couldn't find anything on it currently. I don't think it would take place in the village, and should perhaps be associated with Kispiox River if needed when that entity comes into existence. Anyway, good to see better categories being applied up there (and everywhere)...Later.--Keefer422:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a mis-type, as I'd had it in my clipboard when trying to amend Kemano, British Columbia. There is such a category; maybe through Category:Dams in Canada, just not sure what it is (maybe it's on Bridge River Power Project? Distinction is between dams and powerhouses, and not all powerhouses, like Shalalth's or Kemano's have dams (directly) attached). So if there's isn't a cat, maybe there should be? As for the categorization I've been doing, any chance you might take up the torch for the rest of labelling the Category:Unincorporated settlements in British Columbia items in Category:Communities in British Columbia - pretty much the rest of the cat; think I've got all the in-city/municipality one done now. Asking someone else to take over because my back is killing me and I haven't had lunch yet (obsessive cat'ing); my sacroiliac has been out for over two weeks, part of a recurrent piriformus syndrome, and I really should get at my stretches, and count up some pennies maybe for the chiro....Skookum122:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Did you finish at an alphabetical place, or do it by geography? I've got a few minutes to continue some of that work.--Keefer422:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's it that's left. I was working alphabetically, sort of, although on a whim towards the end I started working backwards from Y and W. What got me started on this was working towards the various band government templates and associated articles; Kitselas, Lax Kwalaams etc have community articles, but not articles on the band governments per se (see exchanges above between me and MightyQuill); this is one example where the concept of reserves necessarily coincides with "tribes" (the main contributor to Gitxsan and Tsimshian sites, User:Terry harris, insists on using that terminology...he hasn't had any exchanges with OldManRivers yet ;-)); I know in Kistelas and Gitga'at cases the kit/git means "people" so those aren't really placenames, please note, and so not geographic but social as names; consistency in this stuff is made tougher when source sites like http://www.shuswapnation.org use the placename as the traditional name on some of their band government listings, but the people name on others....Skookum123:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't strike me as a community at all, but more something some local chamber of commerce/tourism folks came up with to market an area, and it's mentioned on some tourist web sites. Our friend KenWalker added it, so perhaps I'll take its future up with him.--Keefer400:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I know. I've tried to sort it out, but one problem is that it equates linguistics with ethnology, as if they were the same thing, i.e. as if there were a "Coast Salish people" (rather than "peoples"). The page was written by linguistics types (User:BillPoser is the head of the Yinka Dene Language Institute in PG, and got in quite a tiff with me because I presumed to re-label the Nuxalk as Coast Salish; apparently - according to linguistics theory - they're not, but are more closely related (linguistically) to the Interior Salish; so he doesn't respond to me when I write him, or maybe he just doesn't screw with Wikipedia anymore I don't know. What I do know is that linguistics-based pages are incredibly dry, and often use language that's not exactly acceptable in ethnographical pages ("tribe", e.g. as in the various Tsimshian subarticles by User:Terry harris); I've asked over and over again for the linguistics pages to be more accessible, more "lay" in content, less all theory and phonology, with practical and illustrative tastes of the language and its heritage; not arguments over vowel-shifts and infixing and whatever. That aside, one of the problems with Coast Salish is that many of the links go to people or even government articles instead of to ethno articles. Sometimes this is because the ethno article doesn't exist yet, not separately anyway (many language and ethno pages remain integrated - including Nuxalk Nation which you'll also note is/should be a government page); I'd say that "Coast Salish" should be a disambiguation page: with two sub-main-articles: Coast Salish languages and Coast Salish peoples; and the Nuxalk should be on the latter page even if the linguists don't want them on the Coast Salish page. I'll have a look at your talkpage comments now, but one last bit - the template for the "South Island and Georgia Strait peoples" (I'll be back with its trial title, can't remember it just now) doesn't say "Coast Salish peoples"; if it did I should include the Twana, Clallam, Lummi, Nooksack etc, right? "Coast Salish peoples of British Columbia" might work, maybe; I still ahve issues with Sto:lo as being incorrect for the Kwantlens and Katzies etc, but maybe ethnologically they're comfortable with "Sto:lo" for themselves; I know the Sts'Ailes (Chehalis) aren't...so I'm still struggling with the title for that one; leaving "Salish" poeples out of the title and leaving it at "South Island and Georgia Strait" (including Skwxwu7mesh, Tsleil-waututh, Musqueam and Tsawwassen) but by implication this includes the Kwakwaka'wakw peoples at Cape Mudge and Campbell River; mind you, the {{Kwakwaka'wakw peoples}} and the {{Kwakwaka'wakw First Nations}} templates include the K'omoks/Comox (legit in its own way because their adopted language is Kwak'wala, or so I understand). Any ideas for a title that doesn't include them - maybe {{Salishan peoples of the Georgia Strait and southern Vancouver Island}} - kind of a mouthful; I deliberately avoided "South Island" because of its assocation with a particular tribal council. As for the new template names I'll convert them, as per your suggestion, to e.g. {{Kwakwaka'wakw}} and {{(Band) Governments of the Kwakwaka'wakw}} - "Band" being optional but meant to indicate that these are Indian Act governments, not truly indigenous ones (the Council of the Haida Nation and Nisga'a Lisims, as well as, when it's written, the Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en Confederacy; not sure of any others but perhaps there are/were some?Skookum107:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't be everywhere at once; my "read" on the Sto:lo thing is from the Sto:lo website; I used to have the Sto:lo Historical Atlas which might have provided some further direction on this issue, but that was written/funded by the Sto:lo Nation so may not reflect what the Kwantlens, Katzies, Chehalis etc have to say about themselves. The only thing to do is write and ask, I suppose; they may be perfectly happen with Sto:lo, or ditto with a "people" suffix such as Sto:lo'em or whatever the proper Halqemeylem may be. The Sto:lo site only lists certain bands/peoples, i.e. their own members; the Katzies I can get a direct answer from someone, I hope, who knows them well and writes on indigenous and fishery issues (Terry Glavin, who's a friend). I'll have to look at the Sto:lo list again; there's a few other isolates too - the Yale band, I think, but maybe they're already there. Point is that "people of the (Fraser) river" is fine (with the assumption that only the lower Fraser River is the context, the context being given by a Halqemeylem wording/name presumably). The Musqueam and Tsawwassen linguistically fall into the Georgia Strait group.Skookum121:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Although they consider themselves part of the Stó:lō family of peoples, the Katzie Nation are negotiating their land treaty independently, and are not part of the Stó:lō Nation Tribal Council
But I haven't been able to find (yet) in their website support for the statement: Although they consider themselves part of the Stó:lō family of peoples. I suppose if there is, likewise on the Kwantlen and Chehalis page, statements corroborating that, then Stó:lō peoples or Stó:lō people might be acceptable; but I submit that there's effectively more than one, so the plural form seems preferablem as there is no one "Stó:lō people".Skookum121:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Stó:lō make up all the people from that area. It was be the exact same thing if the Skwxwu7mesh didn't amalgamate. We have the Capilano Indian Band, the Mission Indian Band, the Seymour Indian Band, Burrard Indian Band (Tsiel-waututh, the Stawmus Indian Band, the Kitsalano Indian Band etc. Same thing for Stó:lō, except Skwxwu7mesh just all amalgamated in 1923. So there is a one Stó:lō people are there is a one North American people. It's really strange with all these "don't consider themselves apart of". I've personally never heard any Stó:lō or Kwakwaka'wakw talk of such things, but that's not to say it's not true. I can understand with the Musqueam and Tsawassen, who might of different histories that separate them, but it's similar. Not every people/place fits into a group, but some do. OldManRivers21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It's really strange with all these "don't consider themselves apart of"
OK, but I'm only parroting what I've come across in various websites or other sources; whether about the Pacheedaht or the Sts'Ailes; and again, re my comments below, if you look at the Katzie's own website it'd be hard to find the term Sto:lo; maybe it's there; I'll keep on reading.
And just to note, reading through their history - a more detailed account of which can be on Katzie, the putative "ethno"/small-n nation page - there were other Halkomelem speaking groups which are now extinct - the Nicomekl, who like others are a Katzie offshoot (so say the Katzies), for instance, and I know there were the Skayuks on the Stave River (that wasn't their name for themselves, but how they were referred to after they became extinct from disease - skayuks means "they all died"); these never had a band government, and also were not around when the term Sto:lo was coined; and the Nicomekl were Boundary Bay folks, rather than river folks (like the Tsawwassen; related but not on the river). There are, I know, at least a dozen other extinct subgroups of Lower Fraser Salishan peoples; unless we can establish an acceptable norm that all these people can be called "Sto:lo", I'm uncomfortable with applying that term to them; I'll go look at the Sts'Ailes/Chehalis First Nationwebsite and see if they use the term Stó:lō (I dunna think so, laddie).Skookum121:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Was just beginning to compile a list of hotels, and came upon one that had an article already created last October that wasn't really too much to do with the hotel itself thus far...--Keefer406:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The article should be "Occupation of the North Star Hotel", in other words...the title also needs, as I'm sure you realize, a capital-H on "Hotel", since it's a proper name; I'll read it and see what's in it and get back to you; I just got in the door from the gym and am checking the inbox, if this is an inbox ;-)Skookum107:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless the article can be expanded with more information on the history of the North Star Hotel (like... back when it was actually a hotel) it should probably be moved, either to "Occupation..." or just North Star Squat. When I created that article, I thought more information would be available on the building, and that the squat might continue for some time. As it stands, a 2 day event probably couldn't be defended from a non-notable delete request. As for the capitalization, I just followed the CBC. - TheMightyQuill08:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The CBC are a bunch of dorks, especially when it comes to accuracy on things in BC. But not capitalizing "hotel" strikes me as an error on their part, or something stupid in their style guide; or a half-literate webprogrammer who runs their site might be at fault (most likely, given the sorry state of literate education among the profesional digerati....Skookum108:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, it's a big issue up here, isn't it? For certain issues, like the Basi-Virk Affair, blogspace has become a vital source of truth; for stuff like Gustafsen Lake and Oka it was the independent media like the Straight and Terminal City who carried the torch of truth, and for oh-so-very-briefly the liberated-journalist content of the Solidarity-year newspaper strike, when reporters were hired by the Globe and Mail to produce their new BC section, sans editorial control (amazingly). In the CBC's mandate, as pointed out by the military during Oka when they took over CBC Newsworld (see my complaint on Talk:CBC Newsworld), it states clearly somewhere that among its primary purposes is "to prevent the growth of regional identities", which is why there's no "indigenous" news copy or staff at CBC Vancouver, but people transplanted, given a stylebook and some backgrounder sheets, who are encharged with telling British Columbians about themselves based on news experience somewhere elsewhere in the country.....I can never forget Kevin whatsisname (Kevin Evans maybe, but that's probably a disambig), freshly arrived in BC as the anchor at CBC Vancouver during that campaign, now a p.r. shill for some business group, rhapsodizing during the wait for returns in the Harcourt-Wilson election about how it was impossible that Social Credit not survive the election, and would probably win; the egg on his face later that night you could have served with bacon...but mostly my comment about "dorks" has to do with their sloppy style/usages and Toronto-ized pronunciation/dress code....Skookum109:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Another great Skookum moment for the file, lovin it ;) and thx for adding to the hotels and terminals--Keefer410:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You have asked for help on fixing this template. What do you want the template to look and functions like? Can you give a description? AQu01rius (User Talk) 07:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanx mucho. I was out the last few hours. The template is part of a series; see the Category:First Nations navigational boxes for other examples. Long explanation, but this will have a parallel one of "Peoples of the Sta't'imc" with a different set of names, or different forms of the names; not your problem, but I'll be making quite a few of these so it'll he interesting to see what you fixed to unkink it. Thanks again.Skookum108:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I know it's very loose to put Indigenous for all the articles for the people of the North West Coast in all the articles relating to the Pscific Northwest Coast. I figure this way we can differentiate between all the other Indigenous groups, and although the [[[Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast]] are still very diverse, it would be a good place for people to become familiar with the different, then we can talk about all the major cultural regions (Kwakwaka'wakw, Coast Salish, Haida, etc.) with directions to all the people, and talk about all different peoples. It would introduce people to all the Indigenous people. It's not Aboriginal because were not Metis or Inuit, and it would be a a good way to organize everything with the names of all the nations. I would also like to add maps of all the different nations, and here we can have a massive map of all the different nations. What do you think? You down for it? OldManRivers04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, the Inuit are indigenous. I'm not sure how that word applies to Metis, they may identify as indigenous too, but the Inuit definitely are. - TheMightyQuill04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia style/title-content guidelines; ideally Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America is more like it, really, though unwieldy. The North American Northwest Coast seems like a compromise phrasing but I wasn't around when the cats were spawned; the North American Plateau is also rather vague; ethnologists usually distinguish the Northwest Plateau in the same way the Northwest Coast; but it's what there already. It doesn't have to be mirrored, although this makes me wonder if there's regional people categories already in the same way there's regional language categories; I'll look around the Indigenous Wikiproject; but I'm pretty sure the people categories all fall under the First Nations hierarchy anyway; "Pacific Northwest" is a standard term, so is "Northwest Coast", and to specify where the combinaton Pacific Northwest Coast seems clearest (don't forget there's a "northwest coast" off the Bering Sea, too, ahd the Beaufort even...); Northwest Plateau could do for the Interior although in the US they tend to use Pacific Northwest to also include Idaho and Montana, but I daresay people in the Interior of BC don't consider themselves exactly Pacific Northwest; vs where on the Coast it's perfectly obvious that it iis. But "be bold" and use your preferred title; I see your point about Coast vs Interior and had of course opined about it, but I should add that the Interior peoples, or some of them, also potlatched, though with the elaborate ceremonials and complicated politics of the Coast; a potlatch was simply a gift-feast and AFAIK not associated with obtaining rank or status or whatever you wish to explain about coastal potlatching; it was about, if anything, loyalty and generosity. Hunter Jack was famous for his, and Nicola I believe also, and his son and grandson, both named Chilliheetza; but obviously the social/cultural context of the Interior potlatch is different, and I think more internal to bands than between them (say, in the Lillooet/St'at'imc country I think); they simply applied the term from Chinook, as it had come also to be used in English, without importing the whole culture of potlatching which I know you were talking about. Treaties and intertribal gatherings were usually commemorated by "hiyus", which meant "gatherings" (long form hiyu kunamoxt - "many together") and typically had horseraces, dancing, slahal etc several days long. (as in Chiwid, but in many other sources); potlatches seem to have been rarer in what I've read, but I have seen mention; and there's spill-over with coastal cultures with the Wet'suwet'en because of their longstanding interaction with the Gitxsan, don't forget (as though not coastal the Gitxsan are part of the Coast cultural sphere). Anyway, fire away with your article; if some admin somewhere is unhappy with the title you choose everything can be shifted around; try to remember the necessasry cats and also the talkpage teampltes {{NorthAmNative}} and {{BCproject}} or whatever rating (we're not supposed to rate our own articles, but...).Skookum106:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Okay. I wouldn't include the Plateau, because I'm thinking it's pretty much all nations who did potlatching. The categories are good, but maybe and article? OldManRivers
I was also wondering, do you know how to create maps? I wanted to create a mape of all the Indigenous people of the northwest coast. There are maps on the internet, and I have some of my own, but I wanted to create a wikipedia type map. If you do know, and have 'clear instructions, leave them on Talk:OldManRiversOldManRivers
What are some good articles to use a reference for this type of article? I've been reading over Wikipedia articles on creating articles, but I rarely learn from just reading something then doing it. Suggestions for articles to look at and learn how to follow for this article? OldManRivers01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally got some balls and made the article. Probably going to get something about citations, but I did figure out how to do citations (yay!). You probably have a lot more books you can cite then I do at the moment. My grandmother is giving me a copy of Conversations of Khatsahlano one day, but I think you have more books on Vancouver that mention him. I also made a redirect from August Jack as that might come up also. If you know of any pages we could had this link to. (Such as Kitsilano, etc.) that would be great. OldManRivers22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote you on this ;-) If there's not a Kitsilano disambiguation page, it's time to start one for sure; and also note that Khatsahlano should be a separate article, as there were others by this name and the name has its own story, yes? I'm sure by now you're reading my other comments so I won't repeat myself (and I'm still cooking lunch and will have to eat it at some point ;-) ).Skookum122:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little iffy on creating the articles for my other predecesors and ancestors. Quichtaal, Quatsalo, Kiyaplanlo (English sp). I can understand for cultural thing with the non-native community learning more and wikipedia is great for that, but there are some things I would personally rather keep to our people, mostly because of a history of abuse with our culture and history. My great great grandfather said once, The only people who need to know these stories is your family. No one else needs to know them. Now, some of my ancestors were in a tight bind because of the loss of so many our people, they recored the history in different formats. But even to this day my people keep records that we hold dear. Some things are open, like information already published, and nothing very specific about our actually ethos, but it's a balancing act. And it's also a personal choice. lol. So, In short: I'll think about it. OldManRivers22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, and understand about the issues involved for you - I lived among the St'at'imc, don't forget - but as I've tried to tell them and others, if you don't tell your stories to us, someone is going to tell them for you and/or make up stuff, which is exactly what happened with a certain Tekahionawake, no? I know that stories in many coastal cultures, and also sometimes in the Interior, are family possessions, especially in song form, and that songs also are "property" in the same way as "crests" and so are stories; I appreciate and respect that. Obviously some exceptions have been made, as in the case of Lillooet Stories and what's been shared with the writers of books like Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring Kwakiutl Potlach, Barbeau's Totem Poles compendium, or Bringhurst's translations/renderings of the Haida epic texts. The hereditary stories of the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en were all fielded to an impassionate Justice McEachern (who should have an article) during the Delgamuukw case, but likewise ordinarily would not be told to outsiders, at least not in transcribed form. So anyway, I'm not suggesting anywhere near giving the full meal deal here, only living up to your assertion (and a valid one) that your people's history can go back before ours date-wise and in terms of general story; not with all the "mythic" detail but in terms of "Quichtaal was a Skwxwu7mesh man who xxxxxxxxxx and founder of xxx lineage, and that's all; you can even put in something that "more detailed stories of Skwxwu7mesh personal and community histories and stories (or whatever wording) are discouraged/not available outside the Skwxwu7mesh community". Your people are not alone on this; the Druze are famous for it, and many others, such as the Romany, whose internal lore is never shared with outsiders. That's fine; tell what you can, in terms of approximations and generalities, i.e. approximate timeline, an outline (not full story) of important events; as you'll see on the Katzie First Nation's own website, they get right into the Transformer stories there, and other peoples' pages do the same often enough. It's a choice between wanting people to know who you are, or remained a cloistered community that has to tolerate outside misconceptions because of a lack of proper knowledge; a lack of proper knowledge that you yourself have bemoaned, so consider all this in that light; you can't dump on people for not knowing when they want to learn but you won't tell them. I understand there a sensitive cultural and post-abuse issues here, but don't reject all outsiders as if they were those who abused you; many are sympathetic, and many want to know the truth, and are discontented with the pastiches or the tidbits that surface in the non-Skwxwu7mesh media/publication world. Maybe worth a good long sweat with some elders to talk about it; I've been meaning to expound on my notion that the internet, and Wikipedia, is not whiteman's territory, but anybody's territory, and you can stake out as much of it as you want, and build your own castles and countries in it, too; as has begun with Tsimshian and Gitxsan people, village and civilization/culture pages, and that's even without separate band-government articles for the most part. You can either keep your stories unknown only to yourselves, or you can at least educate people with some of the knowledge, and help them understand something like a timeline, and give them a sense of where they are, and exactly how old this place is. There's a long passage at the opening of Maj Matthews' books that I find quite annoying, where he waxes poetic about this big empty land with no one in it; and in the very next chapter he launches into his exploration of the native placenames and what stories were shared with him; including the opportunity to be photographed wearing August Jack's medicine/chiefly regalia (as I mentioned before and we can discuss, although for sure they're not public domain unless it's different with the VAncouver Archives than BC Archives; not old enough); I'd like to see more pictures of Skwxwu7mesh-style art, just to be a bit bourgeois, also....;-) and a bibliography of publications by and/or about your people/language should be here somewhere also. Skookum123:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Pls expound/clarify. Exactly what in the preceding you were referring to? I say much the same thing about general white vs nonwhite relations; it's not about race, it's about culture, and differing perspectives; being raised in the middle of a muddle of them seems to have helped me realize that, and blustery though I sound at times I'm quite self-examining; but I'm also aware of the need to communicate with people who don't understand the context, or the nature of a differing perspective; "it is better to teach than tell off....", whoever might have said that...Skookum107:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a big issue with recording oral histories, including whether a written history can adequately express what is has been handed down orally. As well, there is the question of who has the right to tell certain stories. I saw Neal McLeod] speak once about the North West Resistance (or "the troubles" as he called them), and he insisted he could give further explanation for the killings of certain Indian Agents, but that the stories were not his to tell, the the families involved had decided not to tell those stories publicly, at least not yet. This kind of respect for privacy isn't often as respected in the world of academia or journalism, and makes adaptation into a medium like wikipedia difficult at best. Perhaps that's part of the reason the north west resistance article is so totally POV. In the mean time, good work on the a.j. khatsahlano page. It's nice that the hotel had the decency to ask permission to use his name. - TheMightyQuill22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that the hotel had the decency to ask permission to use his name.
First off glad to see someone care enough to take the interest.
Specifics:
Status of the (Norse/Viking) settlements.
Colony also has the sense of cultural, and not only political, continuity. For example the Greek colonies in Italy were never ruled by kings back in Arcadia but by new ones, appointed just for that task. Same for Norse in NA. They were cultural colonies. The world colonies in even used for the ethnic block Settlements of the prairies. As for the word Viking, I realize it's more of an occupation than a ethnic group, but I figured it was more common. I suppose strict correctness is better in this case.
I hadn't noticed on the template, then - are the Selkirk and Red River Colonies listed? And re the Norse, btw, the prevailing theory is of a mandated expedition by, I think, the King of Sweden; but of course that is, for now, apocryphal.Skookum1
Short-lived, or poorly maintained claims.
I simply added the Portuguese and Scottish ones because we already have articles about them. I don't particularly see them as being better or worse than Spanish claims on the Pacific. That's really a discussion for the whole of WP. How long does a colony have to exist to get an article? Because I figure once they've got an article they're fair game for cat and templates. Meanwhile for Terre Neuve we actually have a list of governors sent out for that one, so there was no way I was going to ignore that. If we have that kind of documentary evidence for the Russians in the pacific, then that's great. I know I just read yesterday about the Spanish actually sending out some officials to Nootka Sound, so that should be mentioned somewhere in WP, if not in the template.
But the Spanish claims on the Pacific were actualized, not theoretical; the Spanish built a garrison and maintained they had a monopoly in the region, and actively partook of scientific/exploratory as well as trading/missionary actifities while there; similarly the Russians, which is also easy to document (see ref'd article, alhtough it's fairly vague and doesn't have some details; the Adams-Onis Treaty of the 1810s I think was the US-Russian deal, though not the Seward Purchase of 1867. i.e. by the time of the latter treaty Russian claims south of 54-40 (the Dixon Entrance/A-B Line, effectively) had been given over to the US by the former treaty, though Russians did maintain trading rights farther south nonetheless; parts of what was thought to be British North America wound up being Alaska in 1902-03, also, i.e. Skagway, Haines, Fort Stikine..but that was post-Confederation anyway).Skookum102:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Districts of NW-T
There are way too many districts to include them all. Certainly not on a template of this scope, they could get their own for pete's sake.Kevlar6701:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not meaning districts of the North-West Territory, but of its predecessor. And the North-West Territory is a post-Confederation name; it is not the name for the pre-colonial entity, which was Rupert's Land plus the Athabasca, Mackenzie and whatever other fur-trade era districts lay outside the Hudson's Bay Drainage, i.e. outside Rupert's Land proper (Yukon, maybe, but I'm not sure if either the NWC or HBC had made that an administrative district, or even penetrated it pre-Confederation; not by much, if at all; in BC's case that was New Caledonia and the Columbia District, but they weren't part of Rupert's Land.Skookum101:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No I hadn't added the Selkirk and Red River Colonies. I suppose they would qualify as well as the Norse would. I agree about the Spanish. I remember reading that Vancouver Island was once called Vancouver and Quadra's Island after the Spanish explorer and governor. Problem is we don't have an article about the colonies they created. Perhaps we should. In fact, I know we should. Same goes for the Russians. Although it would be hard to separate that information from the history of Alaska. Perhaps just listing Alaska would be a solution. The North-Western Territory (North-Western) was pre-Confed, it roughly referred to everything in the Arctic drainage basin. It was bought from the HBC by at the same time as Rupert's Land. Together the NWernT and RL became Canada's NWT. As for the districts in what latter became BC, I guess they were colonies of a sort too. District didn’t refer to sub-division of any larger region did it?
So what have we determined? The definition of colony is shaky, and their may be only a few or many depending on the definition. That doesn't mean we shouldn't convey the information about the ones that do have articles, if not this template, then perhaps a category or at the very least a list. Kevlar6701:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
User concern
Hi Skook. I don't know if you've had any dealings with User:WikiMart, (thinking esp the Bornmann concern) but some of his recent edits (which I've reverted) were not researched, and his previous ones have a strong whiff of POV, as you might notice. Also seems interested only in high profile party leader/past leader/premier of BC articles.--Keefer407:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, it's been a while since I worked on it, and I don't have all my notes handy. 1859 is when the "North-Western Territory" (note the -ern) was created, by the U.K. parliament's Indian Territories Act. (Historical Atlas of Canada, Gentilcore/Matthews, vol II, Plate 21). There are a few mentions of this act on the Web, but I've never seen the text, so I don't know what exactly it defined for the territory in terms of government -- I assume it was assigned to the HBC in some way. I don't know if the name was in unofficial use before that date.
No, it wasn't, or I'd have heard it referred to in early HBC docs and other maps/writings concerning the area; it's a blank slate on the map until 1859, sounds like, British-but-unchartered like the BC mainland; established by treaty with the Russians but otherwise unutilized except for James Campbell and Samuel Black's explorations of the Stikine district. I think the article should be specific about when the name/designation came into use, and I'd venture that it's a British imperial designation, not an HBC one; the HBC tended to use "district" or "department" for their own regional designations, and this particular area was not assigned to the governance of the HBC in the way Rupert's Land was; as in BC, the HBC license west of the Rockies was only a monopoly on trade with the Indians and had no connection to title or governance/rights/responsibilities except maybe the enforcement (occasionally) of British law, or company "club law" anyway.Skookum120:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I've been meaning to thank you for all the great work you've been doing. I've always had the feeling when reading pop-histories of Canada that the pre-1871 West Coast stuff was being passed over way too quickly and with too many inconsistencies. Now my curiosity into this area of history is finally being satisfied by your contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks! Indefatigable03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If only there was time to write/compile more; as there's lots, even without inevitable original-research topics which academic and other publishing have tended to ignore or be oblivious to (esp. eastern-based publishers...); I'm recusing myself from Wikipedia simply because I'm effectively writing a corpus of materials on BC history for free/giveaway while I should maybe be working towards my own book instead ;-| I spend too much time around here, point-blank, although it's been a fascinating undertaking at times and I'm glad I established certain angles/directions within the BC project; I think other Canadians should sit up and take note of BC's very different and very distinctive history and culture, instead of just tossing us into what i call the Komagata Maru-Japanese Internments-Head Tax wastebin, as if that's all the place were about. Quebec and the Maritimes and northern First Nations/Inuit get a lot of play in the national iconography; I think the reason a lot of BC's history DOESN'T is because it defies the usual nostrums and shibboleths about how Canadians are supposed to be, or the cliches about our political history (moderation, conciliation, lack of Indian warfare, submersion of the role of the individual vs the community etc) are completely upended by innumerable examples from BC history; we're an inconvenient truth, and our early history is not understood in its own right, i.e. as an extension of both California and Empire, with Canada only coming into play later (after the railway, effectively, despite joining Confederation 14 years earlier...). Whatever; thanks for the props, and hopefully there's enough traces of what else has to be covered here (that I won't get to before splitting) that "Wikipedia BC" might wind up being hte most useful resource for BC history anywhere; certainly, I can tell, you, the academic textbooks and the big mainstream histories AREN'T.Skookum120:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Your input requested
I'm new here, but I think your dead-on regarding the disambiguation of Chinaman. I'd love to read your take on the controversy at the Oriental article. 68.100.207.21920:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did find it ironic that the "sources" he was looking for were indeed in his own dictionary references. As always, your context on the matter is both refreshing and interesting. Over to the island today, so probably something of a wikibreak. Later.--Keefer418:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. There are three dictionary references. One says "usually" offensive, another says "often" offensive, and another just says it's offensive. No sources has been provided so far to say that only "some" consider it offensive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
They surely all equate to "some" and it seems there is no other way to interpret the definition. But I am open-minded, perhaps you could offer insight as to what the definition implies by "usually" and "often".--Keefer418:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And besides, the "some" part was already established by myself in the edit that you essentially just reverted to. "Some" being Chinese and Asian people. As you can tell I am not in full synch with Skookum1 on this point. Anyway, have a good day. --Keefer418:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Politics is all about pretending words mean something other than what they do, and law is sometimes all about establishing what words do mean. But this is politics, and equivocation; even in the contet of "Chinese and Asian people" there are previously-demonstrated examples of North American Chinese who can and do use the word, whether ironically/self-referentially (like the N-word for African Americans) or simply casually (like the Chinese-Japanese-Norwegian-Native elder who has no qualms about referering to herself as a "chinaman"...even though she's female). But this is all politics; HGQ is now trying to pretend that "usually" and "often" somehow mean something drastically different than "sometimes". Are you sure you're a native-language English speaker, Hong? Because your reliance on dictionary definitions indicates a lack of confidence/knowledge in the language as it is spoken, and a reliance on officialdom, as if dictionaries were prescriptors of language, instead of descriptors, as they're meant to be; they're not manuals or rulebooks, only points-of-reference.Skookum118:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So, Skookum, the sentences "Skookum is sometimes wrong" and "Skookum is usually/often wrong" are not drastically different? Using dictionary definitions to debate an issue is exactly what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Referencing Chinese-Japanese-Norwegian-Native elders that you may know personally is original research. - TheMightyQuill21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't do that on the talkpage, and as Keefer4 and many others in BC know such usages are very common; I was only citing a particular one because it was so ironic, and contrary to HQG's position/agenda. Cites of neutral or at least non-pejorative usages, historical and modern, can be assembled to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the pretension that it is always pejorative, which was the point of HQG's edit which launched this latest round of discussion. The Ravick post is helpful in this regard, and I'm fine with using "usually" or "often" in place of "sometimes", and I do agree with Keefer4's position that the "considered offensive by some people of Chinese descent" or however he worded it implicitly indicates that it is, or may not be, generally offensive when used by non-Chinese users; I wonder - is Kinamand in Danish a derisive (it might be; in Norwegian kinaman used to be heard but I suppose kinesisker or kinesisk might be more "acceptable" now; ki- in Danish and Norwegian is something like "ch-" btw). Modern-era transcriptions of, um, folksly colloquial speech in places like Williams Lake or along the Coast or in the North don't generally document the use of derisives by the quaint, colourful redneck culture of the place, and they also don't tend to document English as it is spoken by First Nations people, either (in the way that Ebonics or Joual have been charted, or Newfie (dialect) for that matter, whatevr the proper link is there); and it's in those sectors of the population that this usage survives; and not even the local newspaper will break the p.c.-styleguide to quote somebody literally; and yes, it's used with hostility often enough in suburban-redneckia, but so is "Chinese"; that's a whole different issue; but in rural use it's very casual in my experience, with no ill-will intended; there was always a grudging respect for the stamina, hard work and mining wits and daring on the frontier, and also for their ranching and farming abilities; the derisive in those days was more commonly "John", with "chinaman" simply as the generic - as the aforementioned listing of historical usages could easily demonstrate, both in the US and in Canada. But that implies a whole article somewhere, and all the citation and argument and counterargument now built into The Orient and other pages; where that word's supposedly derisive connotation was successfully challenged, citation by citation; it's not as clear-cut as this one, because of the paucity of modern sources/citations (given the implicit textual/lexical censorship in modern-era publishing). The core issue remains that HQG has not provided cites to justify the removal of the phrase qualifying that it is not always derisive, and not even the cites he points at back him up in the way he's pretending they do; it's not for "this" side to provide the cites he now provides; he did something which created a meaning for which there is no proper citation, and no way to properly cite it; demanding the opposite be proved is just a tactic and a dodge, as is invoking Wiki principles he's breaking in the same breath as invoking them. Talk about irony.....Skookum122:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum, all I ask is a source or sources to support that only "some" people think the word is offensive. After all your long replies, we still do not have supporting evidence. The reason I cite WP:Original research is that your justification for the edit is exactly that - original research, because you are using your own personal logic instead of providing sources. It matters little if your own reasoning is right or wrong, content on WP is to be backed up by sources, not personal opinions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
With regards to your comments on Talk:Chinaman: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
More threats to take action, repeating yourself here for the second time in this instance. Do you have a single original bone in your body, Hong. LOL. Can you not simply show some integrity and avoid high-handed behaviours and Wikimoralizing that lead people to criticize you? And I do think you're dishonest and demonstrably so by the context of your various edits and deletions; either that or self-deceiving/deluded. Is that a personal attack? It is if you need it to be, I suppose; but you'd accuse the weather of harrassing you if it suited your purposes.Skookum119:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly, Hong is a passive-aggressive editor who is in the wrong vis-a-vis the content dispute, and to call him on it, you have to use words like twit and fool? You do understand continued use of those words could get you blocked, whatever the provocation? Xiner (talk, email) 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OH, so it's OK for him to selectively-accuse me of "borderline racism" and THAT is not a personal attack? OK, so that's an old attack of his, but IMO so is the invocation of "weasel words" when there were none; in my part of the bush, you accuse someone of "weasel words" and you're calling him a "weasel"; if that's a fault of Wikipedia's cultural insensitivities it's certainly not mine. By comparison "twit" and "fool" are minor insults; "weasel" is an invitation to conflict where I'm from.Skookum121:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Hong referred to "borderline racism" when referring to your comments, which he perceives as grouping all Chinese unjustifiably. That does not seem to justify your calling anyone a twit, and the continued leap of assumption from "weasel words" to "weasel" is unjustified. Please, let's talk about the issues, not people? Xiner (talk, email) 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum1, stop. This is no way to discuss anything with anyone. All personal attacks should stop now. Remember WP:COOL - step away for a couple of hours if you must. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Xiner, maybe you might point out to HQG that when he posts on my page, it is inherently a personal attack/harrassment, as per his previous onslaughts against me, which he just went and pointed to again, as if they were valid and weren't personal attacks, which is what they were. I was the one who "disengaged" from this individual before, and it was him who wanted to "keep the discussion going" despite vicious personal insults and bad-morals accusations built into his attacks on my page. So bear in mind who the perpetrator is here, please; he may use polites language, but his behaviour is no more polite; much less so, in fact.Skookum121:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Skookum1, for a very constructive post. May I propose that both of you stay away from each other's talk pages? You should be aware that there is a thread on WP:ANI concerning the personal attacks. I suggest that if anyone violates NPA or 3RR, that the other party post to that board instead. Deal? Xiner (talk, email) 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, funny about that WP/ANI isn't it? Seems Hong likes to talk about people behind their backs, when he can't use his stubborness succesfully to their faces; and once again here, as at WP/ANI he has falsely accused me of weasel words, soapboxing et al. Just who, exactly, is attacking who?Skookum122:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum1, I understand that you disagree strongly with Hong. However, assuming AGF, I find his comments, while POV at times, to be more polite than you seem to give him credit for. Please try to be WP:COOL whenever you're typing a message. I cannot keep repeating this message forever. Absolutely no more personal attacks, please. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum1, I don't think Hong looks at your edits much too differently from the way you look at his, judging by the gap in opinions between the two of you. But if he'd used the same words as you have, then he should've been blocked, just like you could be now. Two wrongs don't make one right. And what does it say about ourselves if we let passive-agressiveness get the better of us? Xiner (talk, email) 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I live in a city full of passive-aggressives (Vancouver is infamous for it) and you learn to speak up and point out to them that they're being aggressive. Of course they'll give you a "how dare you tell me the truth about myself?" look and then look down their noses at you - more passive-aggression - and cluck their tongues for the rest of the day about the rude person they managed to piss off. What you learn in a place like this is that mere salty language isn't aggression; aggression is psychology, and includes soft-spoken wheedling and "polite"/patronizing obfuscation/deflection tactics. Which are, in fact, traits also of the politically correct movement. Whatever; like I said on your talkpage I've made my case but have been ignored; if you'd care to take the historical materials and arguments I've made and fit them into the article in a non-Original Research kind of way, and without Hong or someone else editorializing the material to condemn it pre-fab in the course of introducing it. Letting passive-aggressives get the better of us is indeed something I'm not into playing along further with; Hong relishes the discord, feeds it, cultivates it, all under the guise of seeming civility (others have observed this about him as well); but in the course of leaving this discussion I'm basically abdicating a victory to the passive-aggressive who's been manipulating the page (and you IMO). Fine, let the passive-aggressives run Wikipedia; I guess it's the way it has to be. As for my own penchant for thinking for myself and speaking my mind, yeah, I guess I better go write my own books/articles. Including, maybe, one on the defamation of the word in question by latter-day political groups; that would give Hong something to cite, no?Skookum120:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
When someone gets angry and launches into name calling and insults directed at those with a different viewpoint, they really do not win over many other Wikipedia editors. All of us feel the adrenaline rush and the urge to punch someone (verbally) on Wikipedia when they engage in stupid, silly, unfair, sophistic arguments. The best thing is to politely say you will just have to agree to disagree, then step away for a couple of hours. This will not make other readers assume you have conceded the point or that the other has "won." If someone seems to be a twit, liar, fool, or passive aggressive nitwit, saying so will not accomplish anything. Just furnish a reference to show they are wrong or a diff to show their previous bad behavior and leave it at that. Regards. Edison22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, and impressive passion for the project. I Baldy Blofeld hereby granted this coveted Smiley Award and ask to kindly smile at others in the face of difficulty.♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"I've been expecting you"19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Swede
One of your comments at Talk:Chinaman reminded me of something I read, from a late 19th C account, where a BC government official was visiting a school on Vancouver Island and remarked to the teacher "Well, don't you have any whites or all they (the students) all Swedes?" That kind of thing really stands out to a modern reader because both terms, "white" and "Swede" have very different meanings when compared to what we would think of today. --JGGardiner20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a lot of the contemporary self-defined "visible minorities" know all that much about the nature of discrimination in white culture; I know people who were told to "speak white" (they were French Canadian) and I also know, as you note about Swedes, that SCandinavians and other non-Britons were held, like the Irish, in a "sub-white" categorization, even though of course Norwegians and Swedes tend to be a lot "whiter" than the English themselves. The pretention that only coloured people have been discrminated against is rife in modern publishing/journalism/curriculum, and I think it does a disservice to those of actual European (non-British) ancestry and the various forms of discrimination leveled against them, whether they were "Wogs" (Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, sometimes Yugoslavs), Slavs or "Scandahoovians" or "Hunkies" (Hungarians when not Ukrainian). The Chinese in particular like to brag they had a worse time of it than anyone else; but obviously they've never read much Irish history; nor do they care that there are different kinds of gweilo with distinct histories; nor do they care that "our" culture does not wantonly engage, or shouldn't, in "guilt by classification", i.e. "if you're white then it serves you right because of what other white people did". The artificial division in BC historiography between "European" (white), "Asian" (Chinese only until the arrival of the East Indians and the Japanese in the 1890s) and "First Nations" is highly arbitrary, and obscures the complex ethnic reality of the time; in fact the Chinese, being nearly all from Taishan, were probably the most ethnically unified of all the "racial" groups, but the Chinese don't seem to be able to perceive that someone of Scandinavian heritage/culture is not the same as someone from Sussex or Aberdeenshire, or that everyone was discrminated against in the old days, even Britons, depending on their status and even within-England English ethnicity (Norman, Irish, old Anglo-Sax, Hanoverian, de-celticized Welsh, whatever); similarly in Norway where different fylker (counties) hve different cultures and there are some "ethnic" perceptions and biases. It's always been interesting/frustrating, too, to see those most concerned with minority rights snubbing the whole concept of "invisible minorities" or "audible minorities", because supposedly by being white they have an inbuilt advantage in hiring and advancement - which in modern BC is just a completely silly statement, isn't it? Yet an expat Russian doctor faces the same professional hurdles/obstacles that an expat Indian or Ugandan or HK doctor would; but in the latter case such professional hurdles are criticized as "racist", while in the former they are ignored, or endured. The reality in the history of British Columbia is that ALL groups faced cultural and linguistic difficulties, and most made a conscious effort to leave behind the old language and culture to embrace the new and build a new society; not a compartmentalized society, but a unified society. Hasn't worked out too well, what with Official Multiculturalism deciding what's best for us and also dimissing the integrative efforts of past generations of immigrants while at the same time invoking them in the "we're all immigrants" slogan; yes, we all were; but we chose to become Canadian, and not make a point of being an entrenched cultural minority; or of going on the attack on the host society that had taken us in. OK, rant ended for now, but you get the idea; yes, "white" is highly subjective, and implicitly discriminatory whether it's used from the top end (as in your quote) or as a condemnatory judgment on a whole race (as is so often the case in ethnically-focussed "histories").Skookum120:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read through the long history at that page but I do agree (I think) with Qi Gong that most people would consider the word offensive today. Although that offence is partly because the word is old-fashioned. So I'm sure it could be said without intent to offend also, especially from an older person. I'd say it is somewhat like the term "colored". Most people would probably consider that offensive today but it persists in the NAACP for example. But I still think it caries a negative meaning for most people today. --JGGardiner20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does - but any mention of the non-offensive usage is hotly disputed/deleted. Yet like "Indian" and "coloured" it continues to survive in non-offensive contexts, often in use by the people described themselves; "coloured" seems almost re-redeeming itself lately here in BC, as an option to "brown" or "brown guy(s)" (as a third-generation Sikh friend will happily use, among others); modern-era Chinese immigrants might blanche at it and get all uppity-offended (while disdaining actually mingling with white people socially, shopping etc. and not flincing when using gweilo or its Mandarin equivalent) but the kinds of guys I train at the gym with, even first-generation guys but generally 3rd or more (and sometimes/often not Chinese speakers, or not well anyway), who use it, or could at least take it in joking stride without calling the Thought Police. It's the blanket-condemnation of white motives/culture that's implicity in the "always offensive" hardline position that's so dishonest; it's an effort to dictate culture/language, rather than record it. Oddly, in the Fraser Canyon btw, "Boston" is a mild derisive (for a white, when used by a native) while "Chinaman" is not used in a derisive/malicious sense (to this day, Chinese run corner stores and restaurants in Lytton, Boston Bar etc and are part of the local social fabric). As for compiling all the citations of non-offensive use, historical and otherwise, that's original research and can't be done in Wikipedia (and Hong knows it, even though he knows such examples exist) and there's no way the p.c.-run academic cabals will ever discuss this, or any other related topic, honestly. So that, to me, is one of the failings of Wikipedia; fallback positions go to the written spewings of highly-credentialed folks even when they're wrong or half-informed. e.g. Models of migration to the New World is all citable; but the stuff on BC is outdated and inconsistent with what we've learned in the last few years (archaeological sites at the old water level, 100m down or 100' down, are turning up former human habitation down there...); but like Barbeau and Levi-Strauss and Boas, such material can still be cited; even though shown to be wrong since. Won't happen with "Chinaman", short of somebody doing a really good book on the history of English dialects in BC (which will never happen), so actual reality, being "officially uncitable", can slip forever into oblivion....Skookum120:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose I could get you to adapt the new citations I just put on Talk:Chinaman, i.e. of other/older dictionaries than those HQG cited. What I may do here is take a bunch of my casual usages and put them on the Wiktionary entry's talkpage; that's not citable here and it's time-consuming but there's a lot of such examples...but in the meantime, the integration of the older dictionaries which make no mention of offensiveness seems valid to integrate into the text; but it's so tangled right now I'd prefer someone a little tighter with the syntax have a go at it (and also so HGQ has less of a good time reverting whatever changes you make)..Skookum120:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do on that. Although I'm not exactly sure that I want to get involved in such a murky topic either. "Chinaman" probably does deserve an article itself. But I think whatever happens is probably going to have to have support from you and HQG. Maybe an RFC would be a good idea? --JGGardiner05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I know that "chinaman" can have a somewhat nuanced use in Singapore. You might also be interested in Dick Lee "the Mad Chinaman". --JGGardiner05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting; when I saw the variations, I almost expected the one you meant to be the Aussie rules footballer (rules? - what rules?). There's also this Dave Chinaman guy from California; his stage name for stand-up; I think it's Dave, must be out there in comedy annals somewhere; I think Tommy Chong made a quip using the term here and there, also (or Cheech levelled one at him or whatever), but that's humorous-offensive in that context. He's implied by how he's built the DAB page that the North American Chinaman reference "should" have its own article or get deleted; I don't own Early Vancouver anymore but he better be careful, he might get what he wanted; in this case although he thinks he's winning by being overly civil and trying to work with me (thereby coopting my hostility, like a good student of Sun Tzu), my original view of this article, long ago, was that like skookum and bury the hatchet, some words and idioms deserve whole articles because of their history and variability; they're not anywhere near as straightforward as a dictionary-style dab can manage. Such words are cultural artifacts, as much historical usages as via the cultural/intercultural means as to how they come transmitted to their current contexts.Skookum106:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, god no, I've barely looked at it yet; I've been preoccupied elsewhere, and it's only been a couple of days since the request; I do have another life to tend to, believe it or not...(as well as having more than one Wiki-pan in the fire).Skookum101:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Skookum1, Wikipedians are supposed to assume that other editors have high intelligence, so I'll take that assumption with you and assume that you know the difference between right and wrong, between the right time to use wry humor and the wrong time. In heated arguments such as these there is no reason to use such language as telling people to get glasses. Stop the personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks occur in two forms; one in the mode which, yes, involves confronting someone about their foibles; I am from a place where plain language and calling something what it is - and being quippy - are in fact part of the culture (cf. Ma Murray, Lillooet, and BC in general). But the other kind of attack are the kinds by insinuation, especially when said in supposedly objective language when the intent is clearly not objective. I have been trying to work reasonably with Hong on the split of the article - which was a position I held long ago and which if not he, then others, opposed - and also worked to restore things he'd deleted because of his obsession with citabilities (find me another extensively cited DAB page in most topic areas; there must be some but his insistence here was getting utterly inane). Now, in terms of the new page's content - and title - he's being incredibly stubborn, and maintaining his POV over the page as strongly as he can. I don't know the WP:Whatever to run to and point towards, but I do know people aren't supposed to try and "own" pages. And one way to do that is this policing of citations personal policy he's applying, which given the objections raised not only by me and others to the one-sided flavour of his preferred POV, which flies in the face of what we, as "users" of the word (inasmuch as it's one of North American culture and history), have experienced it in our readings and in general conversation; yes, we can't cite our own experiences but citations from older historical and journalistic materials are abundant; would compiling them constitute "original research"? yes, technically, so it can't be used, even though it's a clear "proof" of what HQG is insisting I want to prove.
In the latest case, which prompted my remark about his possible optical needs, is because there's no way he missed my lengthy exploration of US Census name-entries as available via genealogy.com, or the passage from a mid-20th Century (Ma died in 1982, moved to Lillooet in '31, could have been anytime in there that she compiled and published it, possibly as late as the '60s when she was still publishing the paper and efforts were underway to restore St. Mary the Virgin, the gold rush-era church whose parish register the pamphlet were extracts from; Ma was a wag with a colourful tongue, but her language there isn't any more "colourful" than in the mainstream Vancouver papers of the same era, and likewise in those while the usage may have been becoming insensitive, it was standard fare and not meant to give offense; there were and are worse words to give offense...).
So how can I not respond with a quip? Or do I have to be a drone and right in point form only "see item xxx above", which I know he's already seen and passively dismissed or ignored, or somehow rationalized that it doesn't count or is still offensive. Because it is to him. And that is POV.
Yes, I have a sharp tongue, but it gets sharper when it's truth I'm honing in on; going after the truth is what got me in hot water in the Erik Bornmann affair (you've no doubt viewed my block log); it's an insistence on the other party sitting up and listening to their own fallibilites and poor positions. In this case, there's a large body of material which Hong has been in denial about for a long time; now confronted with it, he still remains unwilling to consider it factual; whether it is citable, or how to make it citable, is another matter. But it's obviously factual. As is the reality that Hong's patrolling of these pages in the way he's doing it constitutes "ownership" and verges and in ways achieves a certain kind of censorship. What's more a threat to Wiki as an encyclopedia - sharp talk between editors, or the controlling and massaging and entrenching of POV-tainted content and views? There are other POVs which Hong is stubbornly, obstinately resisting; yes, I'm getting impatient; but I've been trying to work with him, as you can see; he just won't work with me back; he's stonewalling, and can't cave into the reality made evident even by the number of non-offensive uses on the DAB page - there are non-offensive uses, there are ways in which it is non-offensive. He wants a cite for that, while the list is right under his own nose (and he built it).Skookum102:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, he could be a vandal, and I would still not use that kind of language. If you feel he's taking ownership of articles, start an RfC or something. But don't use salty language. He hasn't, and so shan't you. And no, I haven't looked at your block log. Xiner (talk, email) 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chinaman (racial term). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 4.236.111.6718:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretentious "welcome" comment by IP address/sock-cum-meat puppet 4.236.111.67 utterly ignored and laughed at. You're already at 2reverts, IP person, not that blocking an IP account (actually I note you've slightly switched IP addresses to avoid that - evidence of a someone experienced with Wikipedia procedures, huh?Skookum119:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
When did I ever deny that? I don't want to incur your ire, which I'd get if I log in, so I like to edit under an IP. Deal with it. At least I'm discussing my changes on the talk page, and you're reverting because of who I am! 4.236.111.6719:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually at the time you posted that there were no comments yet on the talkpage, likewise with the similar edit comment; the only pro-offensivePOV comments on the talkpage was HQG at that point. You should know better; how could I revert "because of who you are" if I don't know who that is? But, again, you say you made comments on the talkpage when you hadn't yet. One thing someone told me once - "if you're ever going to lie, keep your lies consistent or they'll trip over each other". Looks like yours just did.Skookum103:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Skookum1, sockpuppet complaints should be filed according to WP:SOCK.
The 3RR rules does not distinguish between which part of an article is reverted. So technically both of you could be blocked now (the IP block would be a simple matter of a range block, as it looks like the person's editing from one range only. That'd also take out any registered users operating from that range.
Skookum1, one person's POV in this edit war is the other person's NPOV. Frankly, I don't see what the whole fuss is about, but perhaps that's just me. Xiner (talk, email) 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinaman
I had a run-in a few months ago with HQG about an article I wrote, and so I know how difficult he can be to deal with. I am firmly in support of a balanced approach to terms such as 'Chinaman,' and when it comes to assisting you in matters involving HQG being difficult, would be happy to help. But, at the moment the Chinaman article has been locked to editing, and so there is not much I can there until it is unblocked.Zeus123421:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw you photo request on the talk page. I was wondering if this might be them on the seawall. they all look the same to me. Bobanny18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I dunno; could be the guys from Beatty Street, too, or even HMS Discovery (that's less likely as I don't think there's combat troops there, and those aren't naval combat gear, if there's any difference since the forces were merged that is). I'd only recognize them in their dress uniform, or their pipe band of course. My idea for an image for that article is their armoury maybe; although that of course will illustrate the armoury's own article, if/once there is one.Skookum119:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. A non-consensus driven (and frankly, unprecedented) decision was just made and there's been another merge. Please take a look and offer any comments if you get a chance. One of those issues that just makes one want to walk away from this thing and throw the arms up. Later.--Keefer4 | Talk22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like some mass subcategory creation to add the appendage "people" was done recently by User:Bearcat, an administrator. I can see the reasoning behind it, to separate out notable individuals, into categories. But as we have discussed previously, along with User:Oldmanrivers I believe, this often doesn't make sense. A Category:Gitxsan people subcategory has been created. Which essentially is 'People of the Misty River people' category. I may nominate a move back to the main category, but only if it's worth bothering with. Yikes 3:30am time for bed... Nope, no more messin with sasquatches for tonight thats fer sure. :)--Keefer410:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and I do agree with User:OldManRivers about name-redundancy, in so many (but not all) cases; "Sto:lo people" come to think of it actually works because it means "people of the Fraser River" potentially in the general sense that's needed; there'd be a different form if fully in Halkomelem - and probably different between dialects/subdialects (Stalo is also the name of the Fraser in Thompson or Shuswap, as I learned from Kamloops Wawa, but I don't know about St'at'imcets). As far as the category issue goes I'm ready to take up the sword if there's an arena for discussion; Bearcat I believe is in TO, not that there's anything more particularly wrong with that than usual ;-) but it's one of those BC-awareness/sensitivity things that this whole hierarchy/article breakdown/organization effort has been about bringing into being/manifestation; I'd nix the new cats, but we may find that adminship would rather see "people" format; not certain if there's US equivalents, e.g. Category:Cherokee or Category:Tsalagi, to use either spelling of potentially one of the largest Native American cats, if they exist; or Category:Cherokee people; but always that would mean "people who are Cherokee", to most people anyway; so Bearcat's new cats subcats of ours, intended that Category:Gitxsan people is for people who are Gitxsan, as a subcategory of the main tier Category:Gitxsan; but it may have to be Category:People of Gitxsan descent and/or Category:People who are Gitxsan just to be precise (?) - and there may have to be two, since a status/member Gitxsan is not the same as someone of Gitxsan descent (see Talk:Canadians of English descent and Talk:English-Canadian). The language of the cat title has to be worked out, surely. Again, all this is a BC perspective thing that has to be sold "across the mountains"; it's a cultural/political necessity here, especially to get FN contributors more comfortable/welcomed and try and embrace their POV as much as possible in creating "BCNPOV", or, one supposes, "BC-NPOV". Hmmm. Almost would make a catchy partyname, especially if you didn't decrypt the acronym....Skookum110:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also venture that our friend OMR, given previous discussions, doesn't particularly like the category title Category:First Nations people and I understand why; it makes much more sense to do it "by nation/people" than as if there were a collective identity/classification; maybe Category:Canadian aboriginal peoples or something could have subcats that are the main peoples categories, Category:Cree, Category:Haida, Category:Dene and so on; I chose the "aboriginal" title so Category:Inuit and Category:Métis could be grouped with them. Either way the native perspective/self-identification has to be somehow incorporated, if need be by parallel, or seemingly parallel, and often overlapping, category hierarchies (as also with language cats).Skookum110:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Set it up
Ok, it's set up now. I usually check it, 2-3 times daily. Unless it auto-notifies on wikipedia, I dunno. Anyway, later.--Keefer4 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
