Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4[edit]

Category:Pratt family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Charles Pratt family. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category makes no sense and seems to be a repository for a group of poorly sourced genealogical articles about people related to an East Coast oil family. There are many Pratts in the world and I don't see why these Pratts need their own category! I don't know of any "people with the surname... " categories that currently exist. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category is for oil industrialist Charles Pratt, and his six sons and two daughters who all built large family estates in Glen Cove, New York (and notable decendants). As of 2004, most of the extant Pratt mansions along the Gold Coast are still in use. As for similar categories, how about the 86 other in Category:American families for a start. Edwardx (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is to be kept - and I don't care much one way or the other - it needs to be made very clear that it is intended for that particular American Pratt family, and not for any other Pratts. Nominator is surely correct that there are no categories just for "people with the surname X", which is a dab function, as opposed to people belonging to a particular family. Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. I have just added "This category is for the descendants of American oil industrialist Charles Pratt and their close relatives" to the category page, which should cover that issue. Edwardx (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should certainly help! Jsmith1000 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The formula Category:Foo family is unusually well-established - but there are precedents for either of the formulae Category:Charles Pratt family or Category:Pratt oil family, however, if despite the defining note now added there seems still to be a risk that unrelated people of the name are likely to end up here. Jsmith1000 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes far more sense to me, to rename it. I'm perplexed that there are so many of these "Foo family" type categories, because they are all very ambiguous! Sionk (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but it makes no sense to me, as there is no need to rename it. Also, the reason why there are many of these categories is that there are many notable families; Wikipedia merely reflects the underlying reality. And they would only be ambiguous if there two sufficiently notable families with the same surname. In which case a suitable qualifier would be added to each such category. Edwardx (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to name but one, there is the prominent English family of Pratt, Marquesses of Camden etc etc - I realise that the "oil" Pratts are in an over-cat "American families", but that is not difficult to overlook. Jsmith1000 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If and when someone creates a category for that English Pratt family or any other, we can rename this one. That's how WP works best - try to keep it simple. Edwardx (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Category:Pratt family (England). Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep but possibly rename - (I've made my mind up now). This serves exactly the same purpose as the other "Foo family" cats, and can clearly be well enough defined to be useable. Jsmith1000 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons offered by Edwardx. Dimadick (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Don't delete, but I think a rename given that Pratt is a fairly common name would be worth it. Howe about Category:Charles Pratt Family? I note that people adding things to this category don't necessarily read the header of the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are categories that follow the formula Category:Foo family for rather more common surnames such as Clark, Field, Marshall and Morgan. I'm not aware of any problem with those. Edwardx (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, as and when someone creates a category for that (less notable) Pratt family or any other, we can rename this one. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a category for that Pratt family, it is Category:Pratt–Romney family, and since it includes Mitt Romney, I would highly question that it is "less notable".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally the article Pratt family is about the family of the brothers Parley and Orson Pratt, not about the relatives of Charles Pratt.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order Of the Madar Horseman (Bulgaria)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The sole article in the category was Anthony Bailey (interfaith campaigner), so there's not much point in listifying, unless some sources can be found. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Difficult to regard as notable award as there isn't even an article on it. Normal practice would be to list the recipients in an article but as there is only one, and the award is unsourced in the article (Anthony Bailey (interfaith campaigner)) even that isn't practical. (If kept fix capitalization Of -> of). Tassedethe (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Akuri[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete; since the user has been indefinitely blocked it certainly does retain some utility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the majority of these IP's were used before Akuri created an account this is no more than an attack page. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not an attack page, as all the IPs (apart from those in the range 110.*) are blocked, almost all by arbitrators, checkusers or administrators active on WikiProject open proxies. The checkuser and former arbitrator, Deskana, has carefully explained why this category is permissible. With about 50 logged off IPs, it is otherwise impossible to keep track of the editing patterns of this editor. Here are Deskana's comments: [1], [2], [3] In addition the editor in question, Akuri, has been advised by Sandstein that if he edits logged off using open proxies or shared IP addresses on wikipedia that he must assume the risk of edits by others being ascribed to him and being sanctioned for these edits.[4] Since so far as many edits have been made logged off as on the registered account, this is the only way to keep track of the IPs being used and cumulative edits. The ranges listed here 101.0.*.* have been blocked firstly by Future Perfect at Sunrise and then more extensively by the checkuser Timotheus Canens, in consultation with other checkusers. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC) modified per Sandstein's remark. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathsci informed me by e-mail about this deletion request. I do not have an opinion about it, but I note that Mathsci's preceding statement inaccurately characterizes my warning to Akuri as a restriction.  Sandstein  11:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, none of the IP's are sockpuppets are they. If an editor has used an IP ro edit and then creates an account that is not sockpuppetry. To create a category describing this editors IP edits as sockpuppets is a violation of WP:ATTACK "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" This most certainly has been created to disparage the subject.& WP:NPA, in that you are accusing an editor of socking when they have not. These are policies, and it does not matter what a "former arb" or any "checkusers" have said, and that BTW is a very sad appeal to authority.Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as Timotheus Canens commented, Akuri has chosen to edit in a controversial area covered by arbcom sanctions. It has a long history of problems involving sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. As Akuri has made a number of problematic edits (mostly related to project pages and arbcom with only 18 content edits), keeping track of his cumulative edits in 2013 requires a knowledge of edits within two IP ranges (all blocked now) plus 15 or 16 open proxies. The notices on the user pages do not indicate any wrongdoing but just that the IP has probably been used by Akuri. While editing within a fixed IP range, cumulative edits can be viewed using either wikipedia software (special contributions enhanced to cover IP ranges) or the toolserver.That is no longer possible with randomly chosen open proxies from Brazil, the Netherlands, China, etc. As a recent example Akuri edited Talk:Race and intelligence, his chosen specialty area. He used the open proxy 83.85.180.203. He indicated that he was editing logged off in the first of his edits, but not the others.[5][6][7] The account was blocked shortly after the third edit by MastCell. As far as I know, that was because MastCell has that page on his watchlist. There is no way of knowing whether the third edit was made by Akuri, but the probability is high. After comments by MastCell, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Timotheus Canens and King of Hearts, editing logged off with an open proxies brings its own problems. When noticed the proxy IP will usually be blocked. As far as checkusers are concernd, Deskana actually ran a check today on one of the more recent open proxies used and divulged the limited amount of information that is permitted. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Darkness Shines. (My interpretation of Deskana's comments was that they didn't care very much one way or the other.) NE Ent 19:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, the fact that there are multiple editors that don't care one way or the other, dilutes the argument that it is an attack page. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category as not having any particular utility, and having the potential for providing misleading context.→StaniStani  07:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering the editor edits a topic under discretionary sanctions, there is plenty of utility in keeping track of IPs for the purposes of figuring out if the editor has received an official warning. It seems to be a reasonable suspicion as well, so I don't see how that makes it an attack page, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt by "reasonable suspicion" is not a policy I am aware of. Nor is there any policy i know of which allows an editor to be labelled a sockpuppeter regardless of which articles he edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They acknowledge the IPs are themselves [8]; it is fine for the purposes of keeping track of things. It's a non-issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not sockpuppets, are they? I have edited logged out once or twice and then logged in and stated the IP was mine, should there be a cat for my "IP socks" as well? After all, there are discretionary sanctions in the topics I edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with that, very good compromise. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable for book-keeping. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NE Ent 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well as we are all happy with this how do we close this out? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This compromise would satisfy me if one other thing is done. If the category will be renamed to not accuse me of sockpuppetry, can the {ipsock} template on the user page of each IP also be changed to something that doesn't accuse me of socking? Akuri (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Squamish[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Squamish people. There was a strong consensus that the name had to change because the current one is ambiguous. However, views were very evenly split between Skwxwu7mesh and Squamish people. In the end "Squamish people" won because of:
  1. WP:COMMONNAME
  2. Diacritics says we use them for proper names e.g. people and places, but this is a step away from that
  3. support was claimed from WP:IPNA but no links were posted to relevant discussions/decisions of that WikiProject, so I was not able to take them into account
  4. in the discussion on May 3 re Nuxalk, the nominator of this CfD conceded on 7 May that be could live with "Category:Squamish people".
  5. the Vancouver Sun was cited in support, but weakened the case by the words "not so much Skwxwu7mesh".
This has been a painful discussion to close. I would also point out that the nominator undermined his own points by not bothering to check his internal links (see e.g. redlinks in his final comment below; I have fixed a few others myself), and referring to forthcoming evidence that didn't materialise.
Please also note that being concise takes longer but is more persuasive. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was erroneously bot-changed by a misapplication of the main article-as-catname guideline in the wake of the Skwxwu7mesh article being renamed to Squamish people. THAT will not serve as a category name for what I think are obvious reasons, nb Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia. See Category:First Nations in British Columbia re the ethnonyms that are used as category names, even though main articles have changed, e.g. Okanagan people category is still Category:Syilx and should remain so. A guideline/convention should be codified at {{NorthAmNative}} or {{WPCANADA}} to formalize this practice, there are good reasons to keep them the way they are, despite the ethnolinguistics agenda which changed the main article names; as far as I understand it the msin-article guidline is not a rule. This category (Squamish) appears to have been submitted to Cydebot but two editors unfamiliar with on-the-ground linguistic and political realities in British Columbia. Skookum1 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This in re parallel CfRs on yesterday's date for Nuxalk, St'at'imc and Sto:lo categories, q.v.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another important FN category, among others, that should not be subject to the arbitrary application of the main- article guideline, is Category:Tsilhqot'in where the main article was recently retitled Chilcotin people; ditto Category:Secwepemc re Shuswap people and Category:Nlaka'pamux re Thompson people. "Chilcotin", "Shuswap" and "Thompson" are not workable as category names anymore than "Squamish" or "Lillooet" are.Skookum1 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment For the record, I just launched RMs on the Chilcotin/Tshilqotin, Lillooet/St'at'imc, Shuswap/Secwepemc and Thompson/Nlaka'pamux articles, which were all changed on the (demonstrably false) claim that those changes were based on COMMONNAME and ENGLISH usages; they're not most common, as a google search demonstrates, and it's CANENGL that applies, overriding ENGLISH; certain indigenous endonyms are now the standard in Canadian English. Skwxwu7mesh is a bit different in not being so widespread and accepted, but it's still part of Canadian English, in its non-diacritical form, and is also the preference of the people themselves.Skookum1 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category name should match the article name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been told in relation to another CfD recently that that is NOT a hard and fast rule. And do you know anything about the Squamish people or the place called Squamish, British Columbia that could put you in a spot where you have the expertise to understand why "Squamish" is not the same thing as "Squamish people" OR "The District of Squamish"? What you are prescribing is a disaster that would take countless CfDs to fix, also RMs to correct the ethno articles that were changed to make the ethnolinguistics "globalized" terms predominant (in BC the indigenous ethnonyms are the norms and those article titels should have been left intact IMO - without their diacriticals, that is).Skookum1 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB there's a big difference between Squamish, which is a disambiguation page and Squamish people, who are what this category is about and they prefer the use of Skwxwu7mesh, even when writing English. Squamish is most commonly the name of the town and the river, and also used by their government Squamish Nation, but if you were to strictly apply your "rule" (it's not), then Category:Squamish people would be the result; but then so would be Category:Squamish people people.Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, rename to Category:Squamish people. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with THAT is that the "people" in the catname means "individuals connected with the subject, not "capital-P" people as in the sense of an ethnic/national group which is the case here; and their self-descriptor IS Skwxwu7mesh. Even in English, and such usages are commonplace in BC now....there's good reason aboriginally correct ethnonyms were used for all of the subcats of Category:First Nations in British Columbia, and for the title articles, all changed somewhat unilaterally; and in some cases the results are unpalatable, e.g. Category:Kwakwaka'wakw can NOT be Category:Kwakiutl people or Category:Kwakiutl because "Kwakiutl" refers to only one group of those peoples (their name means "those who speak Kwak'wala". In the case of the Sto:lo, their name means literally "Fraser River" with "people" implied and their historical/ethnographic name had been, a very long time ago, Fraser River Salish or Fraser River Indians. Both misleading because they're not the only peoples on that river. Ethnonyms were decided on a long time ago within WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for good reasons, it seems that it may be necessary to coordinate a joint set of new guidelines for this subject matter, because the hard-and-fast application of guidelines-as-rules, whether on the people and language articles or on these categories, is creating more problems than it's solving.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You state that "such usages are commonplace in BC now", however you provide no evidence for such usage anywhere else, such as Washington. Here in the US, they are usually called the "Squamish people" or "Squamish tribe" or something of the like, not the "Skwxwu7mesh people". Thus, WP:COMMONNAME needs to apply. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Washington, DUH. As for that being common use, it comes and goes in the major papers, it's pretty much a given in the local Squamish paper unless the government (Squamish Nation) is being referred to; And you don't seem to care about the existing establish conventions re Category:First Nations governments which have been around a long time.....and why Category:First Nations in British Columbia and Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia and Category:First Nations governments in Alberta and other provinces exist the way they do. To me your argument is a "nonce argument" and you're resisting the obvious; also obvious, if you were Canadian (and you're not) is that 'nation' is a POV word and has political associations here (in both official languages, and boy does it ever in that context); and that many FN people to NOT equate their nation/people/tribe with their "Indian Act government" as those who reject them will call them; "nation" means the people, NOT the band governments.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current name creates confusion seriously. It is not for the community of Squamish. Volcanoguy 08:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And its not meant to be. Please see this for the relevant policy. (This applies as per this). - Presidentman talk contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the CANSTYLE section on usages for FN categories or articles; not that there shouldn't be. Same with the general conventions link you provided. Category:Squamish, British Columbia exists (I think) and, if there is one Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia is still easy to confuse with Category:Squamish people if that's where this winds up....."Category:Squamish" is clearly a no-go and was ill-advised. There was never any WP:IPNA formulated convention, though much discussion about it, i.e. namely the use of endonyms on "ethno" articles was deemed appropriate, and imposed names, i.e. "global usage" were seen as potentially in error (as e.g. Category:Kwakiutl vs the correct Category:Kwakwaka'wakw and also as being insensitive to cultural preferences/identity.....the "Palouse people" for example, is named "Palus"....the "Blood Indians" are the Tsuu T'ina, the "Micmac" are the Mi'kmaq (and so is their category Category:Mi'kmaq, and then there's Category:Anishinaabe. Mi'kmaq is standard in Canadian English now the same way that Secwepemc and St'at'imc and Sto:lo are. There are two counter-arguments around here somewhere that "nobody will recognize Skwxwu7mesh" but there's lots of people out there that won't recognize Category:Sami also. The other thing I've heard is that since OMR, who created the category and wrote most of the articles "isn't around anymore" (actually he is, lately) that it's fine to override what he did and his reasons for doing so can be ignored. Yet he's Skwxwu7mesh himself, very much so. He hasn't weighed in here, though he knows about this; he saw the name-change on the article(s) he wrote and was "bemused" (not his word, but my description)....we shrugged it off until this category came up, based on the article name-changes. Isn't there something on the article-move page about not doing the move if it's going to impact categories, as this obviously has done; so anyways, what would would a "people from" category look like Category:People from the Squamish people?? I could make you a list of all the endonym categories and articles, but if you've had a look around you'll see that there's lots; proper guidelines developed for coverage of indigenous articles and categories need to be developed; and native sensitivities and emerging idioms/usages need to be taken into account; and that is why WP:IPNA exists. Because non-indigenous people aren't in a position to tell native people what to call themselves....and then there's just matters of pure practicality, as here, or with "Shuswap" (instead of Secwepemc) or "Lillooet" (instead of St'at'imc) or "Thompson" (instead of Nlaka'pamux), etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "FNs", but you're taking my reply out of context. I was just trying to tell Volcanoguy that this category was obviously not for the town of Squamish because it did not match up with the naming conventions for places. That's all. And, you say, "non-indigenous people aren't in a position to tell native people what to call themselves", no we aren't, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Squamish language version. If you wish to use the Squamish language, fine, but please respect our language as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't recognize "FNs" as an abbreviation (used in speech, in fact) for "First Nations", the accepted Canadian term/noun/adjective/what-have-you for what Americans call "Native Americans", is a good demonstration of maybe-your-need to research Canadian aboriginal peoples/concerns before making any decision about what to call categories about them; it's written and spoken shorthand and you'll find orgs that have it in their abbreviations e.g. the AFN. As for what you think is the case with category-names, you're very wrong. Category:Kamloops, Category:Nanaimo and Category:Kelowna will get you started, there's numerous across Canada; those are all native names, by the way, and the Nanaimo one is why it won't be a good idea to impose "global English" on the Snuneymuxw people or their category. The same confusions as with Lillooet and Squamish will arise, and they're not easy to solve. "Squamish" is such a well-known town name that confusion between it and a category for Squamish, British Columbia (which does not yet exist though there's a subcat using that) is inevitable.....and remember, regular readers and casual contributors can't be expected to know category-name conventions. I submit that you yourself don't, given the existence of the city-categories just mentioned (here's another Category:Winnipeg).Skookum1 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you on Kamloops, Nanaimo, and Winnipeg, which are fairly large cities, but not on Squamish, which has only 15,000 residents. I'm quite confident that no one could confuse a city of 15,000 with a highly notable FN tribe. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to be "quite confident" about that....do you have a cite backing that up? Right now Category:Squamish has one meaning to most people who would discover it, and that's the problem. Posting Category:Squamish, British Columbia in order to make this one work evades the point that the town (district municipality, actually) is the primary usage, meaning it should have the undabbed category. And frankly, you're putting more faith in general human intelligence than objective viewers of human behaviour and ignorance know better than to presume. DAB names for Canadian cities and towns don't matter if they're small or large places, which is why Sheshatshiu doesn't have a dab, among others. And btw "tribe" is an American usage.Skookum1 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to think that I'm Skwxwu7mesh or from another FN group. I'm not, I'm whiter than white albeit with a strong knowledge of FN culture/history/ethnography than most sama7 ("shama", a derisive in St'at'imcets which is their only word for white person). MY language is Canadian English, and I'd aspect you to respect it. It includes native words and names all now "assimilated" into normal Canadian English for at least twenty years now.Skookum1 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand my main point. The Squamish live not only in Canada but in the northwestern U.S. as well. Do the American Squamish not count? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but you need more education, brother. And it seems you haven't read the article that the name-change to caused all this. The Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish are only in British Columbia, you're thinking of either the Skokomish (Twana) or the Suguamish.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you correct me. My brain thinks of the Suquamish after all. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment perhaps you'd like to take up the counter-challenge to find a meeting of all these band governments that describes them as "nations" (small case) and not as governments? You probably will find "Cree Nation" meaning the whole ethnolingistic group......but if that standard were to be used then it implies Sto:lo Nation refers to all Sto:lo peoples and governments, and not just to one tribal council (of two).Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this needs some sort of rename, considering the current name is highly ambiguous, what with Squamish, B.C. and all. "Squamish people" does not work, in that it has the same ambiguity. How about Category: Squamish First Nations people? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That would mean not the people as a whole, but individuals who belong to it. Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_4&action=edit&section=5#nd the people it applies to wouldn't commonly use such a cumbersome construction .... more common for the same meaning, for example, would be "First Nations persons" which isn't a wiki convention for people categories; and it has a different meaning ("First Nations") in that phrase, as an adjective, as opposed to being a noun in the sense of First Nations=band government. A new convention I've noticed in the BC/Canadian media lately is to use lower-case sometimes, e.g. "first nations person" when referring to people, and capitals to refer to governments......but ask them, quite frankly, if there are capital-N "Cree Nations", they're most likely to say there's one "Cree Nation". Because "nation" has mutable meanings, and the capitalization that Wiki forbids complicates the matter further by taking that term from governments to - by my opponents' logic here - to peoples as a whole; that's the problem with that same logic on the Cree nations CfR. "nation" to most people reading Wikipedia also isn't going to be taken as meaning governments, which are the whole point of this category's classification and why things are where they are, and it leaves room open for complete mess-making of what's in the category; in the absolute indigenous sense it does mean the people(s).......in this case it's not about people from the Squamish nation (lower-case), it's about the people as a whole. Lower-case "people" won't work, because of Wiki convention, and the renaming of the main article is being used as the reason for changing the category title to match it.....but oh, not match it, change it. Come again? Well, wow, a nice bot-change of articles, then categories, and I'm faced with 50 RMs and CfDs out the ying--yang........I'm getting old for this, This cat change was a bad mistake, and now people are suggesting other mistakes....I'm going to bed.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Sḵwxwú7mesh gets about 40,000 Google hits and Squamish about 5,000,000. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply well, why don't you try that by excluding all search hits for the District of Squamish, the Squamish Valley, the Port of Squamish, the Squamish River, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and the Squamish Highway....all usages which are not about the Skxwu7mesh people. Skxwu7mesh Uxwuimuxw is right at the top of the Squamish Nation homepage, (www.squamish.net)....I just googled for "Squamish people" and got about 6000 hits, many of them wiki-clones, Skwxwu7mesh gave about 3000, "Skwxwu7mesh people" about 1500.....your comparison of the use of the name "Squamish" - which has all those other meanings which make Category:Squamish so problematic, is an example of blindly thinking that the widespread use of the anglicized name, with all its many meanings, outweighs the preference of the people themselves.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • here is a good example, from the Squamish Nation's own website. Skwxwu7mesh doesn't have the same hold on the use of English in Canada or BC that Ktunaxa, Sto:lo, Nuxalk, Secwepmec, and Nlaka'pamux do, but it's not unknown in English; Canadian media citations are academic writings are more pertinent as google results than anything published in another country; "globalized" usages are not relevant in Canadian English articles on Canadian subjects.Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - What is the actual intended name here? Is it really "S k w x w u 7 m e s h" or am I getting weird characters somehow? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • response it really is that, the /7/ if you haven't been paying attention is a special character for a glottal stop; same as in Sto:lo the colon is required where it signifies the lengthening of the vowel before, i.e. "Staulo" is the result. "1% of google results" vs 99% for results including the town, the river, the band government etc. Try limiting that search to articles about the Squamish people and come back to me with that; the point remains that ethnonyms are a category-standard from IPNA and are the norm in Canadian FN categories, and that the argument that the main article should dictate what a category name is even when the result doesn't make sense is just picayune; Skwxwu7mesh is the "indigenously correct" version of the anglicized more-common term. But using the anglicized form means, in all such cases, that Category:Nlaka'pamux should be Category:Thompson people and Category:Nuxalk would become Category:Bella Coola people (Bella Coola is the Heiltsuk name for them, it's not the name they use themselves). Hm I wonder if a Category:Lapps would fly to replace Category:Sami. I highly doubt it, and the reason is cultural sensitivities and the use of appropriate/correct terminology.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I'm going to have to vote oppose on this per "Use common name in English", also noting per Vegaswikian above that the spelling "Sḵwxwú7mesh" seems to have only about 1% the frequency of spelling it "Squamish". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Oppose" meaning you're fine with Category:Squamish like it is??? Come again??Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have convinced me to support Category:Skwxwu7mesh as long as it is standard Canadian now as you say, I can easily believe it has gained wider acceptance just like Mi'kmaq, etc. have. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just discovered {{Squamish}} which was also speedied, and subordinate articles like Squamish history and Squamish culture which have obvious title problems. Since when does something get speedied that is controversial, without consulting the creator of the cats/templates and articles in question (User:OldManRivers, who's Skwxwu7mesh himself) and without placing advisory templates on the affected items? Given all this, and the nitpicky combacks above, I'm of the opinion that the speedy CfD and TfD and RM were not valid and should be reverted forthwith. But oh, it's not that easy, is it? yeah, sure, easy to use speedies to make egregious mistakes, and then big hurdles are placed in the way of those trying to remedy the situation. Would have been simple enough to strip the diacriticals from the old Skwxwu7mesh category/template - using a speedy - and from the old Skwxu7mesh article, but no, no RM was used to move the main article, and the "speedy" was done by mimicking (badly) the main article title. This isn't the first time I've seen speedies rammed through and obstacles put up to correct them; I've advised the person who changed the template of their error and its consequences; speedies which are controversial should be reverted, given the lack of proper notification and the fact that they obviously are controversial, as has been their outcome, including in this (very) frustrating CfD. This is a case of people moving deck chairs around a sinking ship, while the person who knows what they're for and where they go is being derided for wanting to fix the many mistakes and mistaken assumptions that are being fielded to defend it, and to block a rational and precedent-backed use of the proper ethnonym which is the proper established norm. The catname should be rolled back, so should the speedied article change and the TfD, and it's that simple. But no, nobody's going to let it be that simple, are they?Skookum1 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind the template {{Canadian English}} should be included on the talk pages and editnotices of the articles in the Category:Skwxwu7mesh to remind editors that British, American etc. usage is irrelevant. LiliCharlie 09:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I question the creation of a category in a non-Latin script (yes, "7" is not a letter in Latin alphabets), but the more fundamental problem here is that anyone who isn't already quite close to the subject doesn't recognize this as anything but a typographic mistake. If the category is renamed, there is going to have to be a category redirect, as the name "Squamish" is quite well-known. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, but the TOWN is much more well-known....and in its current form the game 'Squamish' could conceivably be added to, even though it has nothing to do with the place or the people. The current name is a no-go, LiliCharlie's observation about strong national ties is very much on point, and was the basis of the category naming debates in the first place. None of the 'solutions' proposed so far are workable, though this one is the most unworkable; and should not have been changed by a speedy; anything but.Skookum1 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skwxwu7mesh people might make a suitable main article, and frankly I'd move it based on 'strong national ties' if it weren't already a redirect; the name section on Squamish people has disappeared, that page has been seeing a lot of vandalism lately, including anti-native edits, so I can't check to see if the -mesh ending means 'people' or not (which it might, re St'at'imc - "people of Sat'" and Nlaka'pamux where -mux is the 'people', ditto Secwepemc where -emc is 'people'). The "final solution" here is to revert all the main articles back to their ethnonym forms from "FOO people" which was controversial and pushed through speedy; just like this was.Skookum1 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mangoe, 7 is not specifically Latin but has the Unicode script property common. However it is/was in use to denote the glottal stop phoneme /ʔ/ in the Latin orthographies of several languages of the Americas, especially Mayan languages (in which it has commonly been replaced by an apostrophe ’ following the recommendations of the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages), and this makes it a Latin letter. — BTW, did you know that Unicode currently has 1272 Latin characters + 6413 script-common ones + 523 script-inherited ones? This means that users of Latin alphabets have 8208 characters at their disposal without needing to borrow from Greek, Cyrillic,... LiliCharlie 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)
      • No, it doesn't mean any such thing. It simply means that text datastreams can mix symbols from multiple languages indiscriminately without having to deal with multiple meanings for each code point. Look, the increasing trend towards article titles in non-English characters is turning into a triumph of parochialism over legibility. It's (in some sense, I suppose) bad enough that people who read all the Scandinavian and Middle European place names and mentally mispronounce them by stripping off all the diacriticals. Here we have a case which the person who actually needs to read the article is likely to understand as a string of gibberish, and I suspect that more than one such reader might be rather galled to discover that it has an name in English which he may well recognize and can at least pronounce. I'm sure it's some Neanderthalic urge of mine that wants to see the English Wikipedia written in English words, even if they are loanwords, but it seems to me that readers are better served by something that they can actually read. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply the problem in these cases is that the "English names" are in many cases archaic or now considered outdated; it varies with each case to what degree. People-names like Secwepemc and Sto:lo are commonplace in Canadian/BC publications now, "even" Nlaka'pamux is; their older name is the Thompson people (actually I think the gold rush-era "Knife Indians" sounds way cooler but nobody refers to them that way; in French that's the Couteau and the area is "the Couteaux Country", and isn't a refering to knives as such - though Knife Indians is - but to the serrated nature of the landscape, which is benchlands cut my canyons); in the case of the Owekeeno, where the archaic name is now completely out of date (Rivers Inlet people) though a newer orthographic that their government and also INAC recognize is Wuikinuxv (their language is Wuikyala)....by the logic that dictated this change to "Squamish", their category, if there is one, is going to wind up as "Rivers Inlet" and the Sto:lo one will be "Fraser River". The archaic Kwakiutl is now in complete disfavour in most Kwakwakwa'wakw groups (unless you belong to the Kwagyulh in Fort Rupert or the Lekwiltok in Campbell River, who are connected and themselves use "Southern Kwakiutl".....Sinixt "in English" are "the Lakes" (often referred to that way in 19th C sources, without "people" on the end)....and saying Kootenay Indians instead of Ktunaxa or Kutenai or Ksanka is just "not on"....all this is why there's Category:Tsuu T'ina, I think it is, for the Alberta Blackfeet....because that is now a widely-accepted use in Canada, by media, by government. We're talking about terms here that are part of Canadian English, and this is a Canadian article.....yes, the glottal stop is an oddity, so is the colon in Sto:lo, but it's normal to see them in English transliterations now (in the local paper in Lillooet you'll see someone use "Hu7malh" as a sign off or a greeting)...the actual "native character" is not a 7, it's like a large 7 but the tail dips below the baseline like a g or j, only farther a bit. Back to the main point, using "English names" often means archaic or discredited or disused terms where more modern usages are now common and increasingly so (including Skwxwu7mesh though less so than Sto:lo, which is very common - "Fraser River Indians" is not. Secwepemc (Shuk-WEP-mek) is far more common in print than "Shuswap people" or "Shuswap tribe". But no other of those examples, other than Lillooet, has the same problem as we have here. A well-known town and river in each case, and a region in Lillooet's, the share the same name as the people....a name they adopted (it used to only refer to the group at Mount Currie) but which they are phasing out in preference for St'at'imc or Stl'atl'imx (s (ame word, different orthography, different organizations have their preferences; Squamish is a much better-known name, to the same degree as Nanaimo or Cowichan or Coquitlam; those groups to distinguish themselves from the old anglicizations of their names, use for themselves a 'more native " version of their name, and they use it in English...and so does our media. Suneymux, Quwutsn, and Kwikwetlem. Some coin names, e.g. the Sts'Ailes who formerly shared the same name as a group in Washington, the Chehalis...others are ancient names like Nlaka'pamux or Shishalh that are now current in Canadian English. And this is a Canadian English article and category, and so the question must be asked "whose English are you talking about?".Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Squamish people to match the article which is Squamish people, so we should follow that example with the category name, if the article is renamed we can consider renaming the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category should "Squamish people" to correspond to the article title, a title which was established as a the result of an RM. The tribal government refers to itself as the "Squamish Nation," as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Curious you could look at that page and not see "Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumix" at upper left....Skookum1 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The most common usage I have seen is "Skwxwú7mesh" not "Squamish". Also the current name makes confusion with the community with the same name. Volcanoguy 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just noticed the 'u' accent....did I nominate it that way? I wasn't meaning to; I don't think I copy-pasted the name from the article; the nomination was meant to be without the diacriticals.Skookum1 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in addition to the Mi'kmaq and others already mentioned, here are some other endonym-based articles/categories: Yakama/Yakama Nation vs Yakima (city in Washington state), Dineh (instead of Navajo), Ojibwe/Category:Ojibwe (instead of Ojibway or Chippewa). Category:Dakelh has remained unchanged even though Dakelh was changed to Carrier people, Dunneza was changed to Beaver people not sure the category name if there is one; there's another spelling Danezaa. "People don't recognize the endonyms" isn't really relevant when most of these few people have heard of anyway.....and gee, you learn something new every day, or should.Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is Category:Navajo people. I think you are also consistently ignoring the fact that we use the common, English-language name for things in wikipeida, not the "correct" or "official" name. We follow established writing practicies, we do not try to force them or change them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In going through this, I fail to find any case being made that the current name is not the common name in English. And that is really what determines the names we use. The starting premiss for the rename was that the name was erroneously bot-changed which is simply false. The bot change was the result of a nomination so if the nominator has an issue it was with the discussion. A good example to keeping the current name is Category:Hawaii which by the arguments being presented here should be renamed to Category:Hawaiʻi. But there is an accepted English spelling and an accepted Hawaiian spelling which may be in common use, at least in spoken language by English speakers. A rename to Category:Squamish people should not be decided by this discussion but by a new discussion if anyone wants to follow up. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Well Vegaswikian, Tsuu T'ina, Anishinaabe and Mi'kmaq all have articles and in fact, categories, and "Sarcee", "Chippewa" and "Micmac" are what they are called "in English" (allegedly, the reality is that the first three names now are part of English). There's even Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe (of whom the Ojibwe/Chippewa and many others are only a part; there is no collective name for this group of peoples other than the one now adopted into Canadian English like all others named here. And re the bot, who was the nominator, then? Did they even consider the other meanings of the word "Squamish" when they did this? Or, as is too typical, then just knee-jerked on the (not iron clad) guideline (not "rule") that categories must match main articles without giving thought to WHY this category was named this way, along with the others that are subcats in Category:First Nations in British Columbia but which, so far and mercifully, haven't been "nominated" without regard to their content, purpose, or import? This category name was clearly out of line and controversial and confusing and it should be reverted, even to the diacritical form (anything's better than this, and I still think Category:People from the Squamish people is going to look completely foolish if this goes to "Squamish people" as was done to the article and others like it). The premise that "because this is English Wikipedia" isn't a good one, and is easily put the lie to by a glance at hundreds of article titles and categories of various kinds.......unless you insist that Kaúxuma Núpika MUST be changed back to to Manlike Woman so that it belogns in English Wikipedia? What about Haudenosaunee? As I've noted and had the threat of an ANI waved in front of me for, "this is English Wikipedia" sounds an awful lot like "speak white" (which used to be said to quebecois and other francophones) and flies in the face of the emergent realities of Canadian English and its embrace of native-language names...it sounds racist and chauvinist and extremely parochial..List of aboriginal place names in Canada is full of aboriginal words, maybe you think Iqaluit should be reverted to Frobisher Bay (er, maybe that was what Pangnirtung now is, I'm not sure) and that Sheshatshiu should be deleted because it's not an English word and nobody not from there knows how to pronounce it right? And from other languages there's Guailo, which "in English" is usually rendered "Gwai Lo" or "Gwailo" via its Cantonese form, but Wikipedia has been "forced" to use the Mandarin version name, as also happened with Taishan, the group of villages in Canton/Kwangtung where many early North American Chinese came from and who did not speak Mandarin. Xhosa is not an English word either, and is utterly unpronounceable, but it has an article, too. And a category, no doubt.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This essay from a former OED editor for the federal government's Translation Bureau is about the "rise of the endonyms" in Canadian English; the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish are not mentioned by name, though other BC groups are, notably four of the five currently up for RMs, but it's highly relevant to this discussion. BTW the old "English" version of Skwxwu7mesh was Skokomish, which is closer as an anglicization to what Skwxwu7mesh sounds like; it's too similar to the "usual" older name of the people in Puget Sound who go also by Twana so was abandoned by the wayside long ago....Skookum1 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The takeaway point in that article is "It remains to be seen how successful these names will be in surviving in English when they seem to insist so heavily on their very un-Englishness." This implies to me that these names are not successful yet. And as a side note, the splatter of names given as replacements for "Ojibwa" in that article is not something we can handle, no matter what; at some point we have to some one thing. I must also add that you're patently a crusader here for "anyone can present a demand to us to use any arbitrary character string for their name, and we have to respect that because if we don't, it means that we are morally deficient." I'm sorry, but I don't grant the right to jerk me around like that. Present me with a character string that's undecodable in English, and I'm at least tempted to revert to "the artistpeople formerly known as" just so I have something I can actually say. I suppose if it can be shown that everyone uses this new character string, we'll be forced to use it too; but we need to get to that point, and that point only. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "splatter of names for Ojibwa" is actually recounted in various articles to do with Anishinaabe and your disdain for the renamings listed is evident; i.e. "bad attitude" as evinced by "splatter".....and Pfly has pointed out that essay's "remains to be seen" is ten years old. The way citations being provided are being picked apart and dismissed re these issues, particularly in the related RMs, is really quite ridiculous; you're effectively saying that modern usage doesn't matter, and out-of-date usages should prevail. Doesn't apply here so much with Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish as it does to the others. But good grief, derogating given sources based on your interpretations of their validity is original research and pointedly POV. And THIS "anyone can present a demand to us to use any arbitrary character string for their name, and we have to respect that because if we don't, it means that we are morally deficient." is a patent falsehood and fabrication, but all too typical of the rejectionist attitude that underlies so many of the mis-statements of what my position on all this is. This is not an "arbitrary string", none of these are. Where do you get off making such an absurd statement, given that Skwxwu7mesh was provided by an actual Skwxwu7mesh person....who's also an experienced Wikipedian (OldManRivers). I'm learning around here you can show someone a horse and they will maintain it's a cow.`Skookum1 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re the "FOO people" construction proposed i.e. "Squamish people", please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people} became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......and all the more reason, to me, to use the endonym for the main article not what it has been made since it was first written. And re the use of names unfamiliar in English to most, but which are in wide use, see Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada's provincial subcategories for many, many, many examples.Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just received a reply from author and reporter Terry Glavin, who used to write for the Vancouver Sun and is a very notable writer on First Nations and other aboriginal issues. This is a direct quote from his reply: "What a profoundly exotic line of argument, and against this? "The St'at'imc, Tshilqot'in, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa and Nlaka'pamux names, if not so much Skwxwu7mesh, are now a standard part of Canadian English and the accepted norms." That sentence is completely and unambiguously and (one would have thought) uncontroversially true. These (except for perhaps Skwxwu7mesh, I don't specifically recall) were the correct spellings at the Vancouver Sun while I was covering aboriginal affairs more than 20 years ago for goodness sake. The Vancouver Sun isn't exactly a linguistics newsletter." The profoundly exotic line of argument he's referring to is the "it's not English because nobody knows how to pronounce it" and "we don't do official names" criticisms of the proposed version(s). Also received a note from my CBC reporter contact that the CBC's name/pronunciation system is an internal database and can't be linked/quoted easily. Still awaiting word from the Counsel-General (who's back at work today) and CTV. But between federal and provincial government citations and documents, two or three crown corps, munis/RDs and the government sites of the peoples themselves, I have yet to see any citation proving the other claim that the archaic/discredited names are "most common" or that "these terms don't belong in English-language Wikipedia".Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also very relevant to these matters, and though Wikipedia is not bound by UN declarations, Article 31 of the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples deals with language and culture issues and calls for respecting the wishes and such of indigenous peoples about those issues; I can find a direct quote if need be, but suffice to say there's an international standard about this that Wikipedia should heed.......Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that I know a Chippewa (from Canada no less) who self describes as such, your attempt to claim that adopting unpronounceable strings of characters is the way to respect how people actually self describe falls apart when tested against reality. Anyway, the fact that there is no attempt at present to get the article renamed suggests to me that this is a misguided crusade largely placed in areas where you think you can strong arm compliance the easiest. Wikipedia does not use "official names", and does not consider UN resolutions at all in naming categories. To even suggest such demonstrates a total failure to understand the principals of using common names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, they're pronounceable alright, just because you don't know how is irrelevant. As for not understanding common names/usages, that these are COMMON in Canadian media, government, education and more seems to completely escape you as evidence that they are common. It's a bit different with "Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh" as the latter has been around for years, and is in use by the people themselves when speaking English, and the original Skwxwu7mesh article title and category were created/used expressly to distinguish from the name of the "Indian Act government", as User:OldManRivers and other Skwxwu7mesh have previously explained (at length) and also to distinguish the article/category from the town-usage. Your posturing on the Thompson people about RM that "it's a fact that these people [use Thompson] when speaking English" is laughable.Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You really should stop insulting other people. The fact that people do not know how to pronounce them is relevant, they are strings of characters that make no sense to msot readers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Squamish Nation. A good case has been made as to why the current Category:Squamish is ambiguous and fails in the distinguishing character needed for a category name Category:Squamish people also fails. A good case is also made against Category:Skwxwu7mesh as it looks like a typo, the related CFD's also went against exotic typography. So the task is really to find a good disambiguating category name. Squamish Nation describes the people so that is a candidate Category:Squamish (First Nation) might also work.--Salix (talk): 13:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is exactly the wrong move to make, there is a distinction in WP:IPNA conventions between government articles and peoples articles, same with categories; the reason User:OldManRivers created the diacritical version of Skwxwu7mesh in the first place is because, as a Skwxwu7mesh himself, he and others make a distinction between their people and the Indian Act government which is the Squamish Nation. Also the dab "First Nation" in wiki parlance/convention refers to band governments; in adjectival sense that is evolving in Canadian English any adjectival use is "first nation", uncapitalized. No other "peoples" article uses that in BC; in other parts of Canada quite often the reserve, people and band government articles are all (for now) the same. There is a big distinction between traditional governance and the Indian Act governments aka band governments, and it's why St'at'imc and St'at'imc Nation and Nuxalk and Nuxalk Nation are different, as not all St'at'imc groups belong to that tribal council, though in the case of the Nuxalk, being a (now) very localized and centralized community, there is only one. Another good example is Sto:lo where there are TWO tribal councils, and numerous bands belonging to neither; same with the Nlaka'pamux where there are three band councils and some bands, including the largest one, Lytton Indian Band which do not belong to either, and some bands in at least two of the tribal councils overlap with an Okanagan group, the Spaxomin of Upper Nicola, British Columbia who are also members of the Okanagan Nation Alliance. Similarly with the Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc, Dakelh, Kwakwakaw'awkw and others where there are multiple tribal councils, independent bands, and some taht overlap with other groups, in the case of the Secwepemc the Pavilion Indian Band (Tskwalacw First Nation belong to one of those tribal councils (however that latter name is spelled, I'll have to check it; the have a separate "people" article Tscwayalac'mc), in the latter case the Shuswap First Nation at Skookumchuck, British Columbia is conjointly a member of the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council, which is otherwise Ktunaxa. The Tsimshian have no tribal council at all, the latest one dissolving itself for political reasons several years ago. The BC ethnopolitical map of First Nations peoples and governments is complicated and overlapping, and the term "First Nation" instead of "Indian Band", and which can also simply mean "Indian group" or just "Indian", is too vague, and also too politicized in its creation and usage, to be used in such a loose fashion. Other RMs for St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Tsilhqot'in and, Sto:lo have been returned to their original "FOO" names without any dab, in no small part because they were established as being a common feature of English, including official and media usage, as also with Kwakwakaw'akw and Gitxsan and many others. The point of this CfD was to restore the usage Skwxu7mesh, though without the diacriticals, and because Category:Squamish is wholly unworkable, as you might realize if you've read the whole CfR to date. Skwxwu7mesh is less common in English, though still in use in media and certainly by the nearly-all-English-as-a-mother tongue Skwxwu7mesh themselves; it's also used by the Squamish Nation on their website to distinguish their traditional name from the one conferred upon them by the Indian Act. And here in Wikipedia, the use of endonyms without any modifier or dab was come up with as a convention within both WP:IPNA and a loose team of members of the BC, Washington, Oregon and other regional WikiProjects because of the overlapping of band councils/tribal councils and peoples and languages, and the distinction (more prevalent in BC than in other parts of Canada and the US) between the Indian Reserves and their governments and the peoples assigned to them (that applies widely in BC also because many reserves, like Grass 7, I think it is or Grass with another numeral in its name, near Chilliwack and Peckquaylis near Mission, are shared by different band governments, not all belonging to the same peoples, also. Category:First Nations in British Columbia was "decided" (by that working group, going off evolving conventions in WP:IPNA, to be used for endonym-named people articles, including Skwxwu7mesh and the others mentioned above, while Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia was to be used for band governments (the tribal councils category is a subset of that one, as they are not the same and are formal alliances of band governments). Indian Reserves and languages are categorized separately for all of the reasons above. In the case of the Skwxwu7mesh, there is only one government spanning several communities, none of which have their own distinct band government, but the traditional governance that is described in what is now the Squamish people article is very distinct and much older than the Squamish Nation government; there is no overlap with the Tsleil-waututh (Burrard Band) nor the Musqueam Nation (Hwmethkwyem or something like that) as is the case with many other groups. The point here was to restore that evolved standard, and to avoid "FOO people people" or "People of the FOO people" and also because Squamish in its primary modern usage is Squamish, British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any alternative suggestions Category:Skwxwu7mesh really does not work for me, is there any other possibility which might work? There may not be a perfect answer and we find some compromise.--Salix (talk): 15:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the chosen and in-use endonym of how a people choose to call themselves can or should be compromised. I'm in contact with OldManRivers independently of Wikipedia, and will ask him to comment again.Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It is well established that contemporary scholars of this particular people use term Skwxwu7mesh (or some variant) not Squamish when writing in English. This is not debate between English language speakers vs Skwxwu7mesh language speakers, with all due respect, it's a matter of debate between people who know what they are talking about and those who don't. This is not a matter of WP:COMMONNAME but of WP:EXR. Contributors who are citing from quality and recent secondary literature will naturally want to use the term cited in those works. You'll notice that both PhD theses cited in the article use the term Skwxwu7mesh in their English language titles. Choosing to ignore academic literature in favour of tradition and ignorance does a disservice to wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Squamish people, per several above, per current convention, and per WP:COMMONNAME. And yes, I've read the walls-o-text above and the various links and google searches, etc. Also against this is the usage of "7". See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Diacritics. As there is a version of the name common in English, we are to use that. As an aside, this nom shows another reason (several actually) why we shouldn't categorise by ethnicity... - jc37 23:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Oh really? So all First Nations and Native American tribal/ethnic articles and categories should be merged into just one?? Come again? And the "FOO people" formation people, including in this case, will be taken as meaning "people from Squamish" not "people of the Squamish tribal/ethnic group". This was all discussed and conventions established at the t ime of the creation of the system of articles and categories derived back in '08 or so, including by myself and OldManRivers and User:Phaedriel and many others in IPNA. What I'm seeing here is people who don't have a clue about these people or the town/place/area and who are imposing externalities and false invocation of guidelines as strict rule-sets, which they are not (the Fifth Pillar is, after all, WP:NORULES and User:LiliCharlie in one of the RMs pointed out that categories to not have to conform to the title of the main article, if there is sufficient grounds to. The use of endonyms as a standard for indigenous "ethno" articles was because in some cases the "MOSTCOMMON" names are now in disrepute and/or disuse, and also as with this one and what is now Sechelt people and various others, naming the categories (and templates in this case) by names that are the same as that of a better-known town area was meant to be avoided by the use of the proper endonyms. And to avoid confusion, as has also happened in this case, with the names of their modern (Indian Act-mandated) governments, and the other convention established by consensus, is that ethno/people, government/tribal council, language, reserve/reservation and "people from" categories and so on were all to be separate because of the many case of complicated overlap. I am weary with explaining this for the, oh, twentieth time or more, and being ignored by people making simplistic rejoinders about COMMONNAMEs or by other isolated invocation of guidelines .... by people unfamiliar with the subject matter, the context, or any other involvement with the article or subject. Which is the case with the RM here, and with all the "votes" I'm seeing here, including yours. I despair that any common sense will prevail here, only a "vote" by the uninformed, no doubt made by an editor/admin similarly uninformed, and that all the long and thoughtful debate that established the current-but-now-under-attack conventions (rapidly dissolving because of thoughtless RMs and CfDs etc...) will turn the clock back to colonialist-era names that look very out of place in the modern Canadian context, aboriginal or otherwise. The Mt Currie St'at'imc are regularly referred to in English now by their proper name, the Lil'wat, names like St'at'imc and Nlaka'pamux and Secwepemc are equally well-established, among many others; and re that '7' that everybody doesn't like, it's not the only unusual character in use in Canadian English; and Sto:lo and Category:Sto:lo is a case in point that is now "mainstream English", with the colon (which make the "o" more like "ow"); it would not be acceptable and is not present in English without it i.e. as "Stolo"....even when it might occur in a publication in New York City or London or elsewhere, not just in BC. So if all those are to be in their endonym forms, and in fact have just been re-mandated as such via RMs, then to ignore the convention, which had very good reason, and an informed consensus, is just irresponsible....and disrespectful not just to that consensus, but to these peoples themselves. Having non-natives decide what natives should be called is also covert chauvinism, whether consciously or not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, really. Though I think you may have misunderstood my general "aside" to be specific only to this discussion. There was an rfc on whether we should categorise by ethnicity, and everytime we see these CfDs, I'm more convinced we shouldn't. Categories are NOT to be used for displaying encyclopedic content. They are merely to be a navigational tool. Indeed, the whole category system should be able to be removed and we should still have an encyclopedia with the content intact.
    As for the rest of my comments, they are per our current style guidelines. If you disagree with them, please feel free to start a discussion to see if there is a broad consensus which agrees with you. In the meantime, I presume that the closer will close this per this local discussion, while taking into consideration the broader policy and guidelines. And as far as I can tell, what you appear to personally want would seem to be contrary to current guidelines. - jc37 06:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/reply There was a consensus within IPNA about using these names and the associated category structure that was never formalized into a guideline and which has been blatantly disregarded by the speedies that laid the groundwork for the RM that resulted in this category-name change which is unworkable in the extreme and is NOT the primary usage for "Squamish". And noting that the Squamish RM was also based in undiscussed speedies of long-standing article names where "[anglicism]+people" was uniliterally changed, without reference to why those articles were so-named and likewise the categories in the first place; existing guidelines did play a part in the aforesaid consensus, and there are thorny issues about overlapping peoples/bands/reserves and such which is why there were special needs for North American indigenous content which do not fit well with "guidelines" being enforced as strict rules, which they are not. The RM that led to this faultily-named category (which is unusuable in its current title for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with the name "Squamish") was based in a faulty series of undiscussed RMs by "someone" who only sees the material from his own perspective; and has no regard either for what the peoples themselves call themselves, or for modern usage which accepts (in Canada) the "proper" endonyms; there are so many affected articles that they are too many to list here; a "namespace collision" that came about from improper imposition of allegedly global guidelines, ignoring all the exceptions and variables; somewhere in these CfDs or the many RMs, User:Lili Charlie, I think the username is, opined that "strong national sentiment" was notable in all these cases; and also worth noting that "most common" when older and faulty sources are used to decide that are inherently faulty.Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that there was a consensus for something, which was not formalised into a guideline, then write the guideline, and start a discussion on it, and thereby re-establish consensus. - jc37 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And if, as you are claiming, the whole category tree should be deleted, yet the articles remain, then how are they to be categorized? They are not exactly "ethnic groups" but very much the subject of specific categories here and in the Commons as well. What you are proposing, to me, is very destructive and demonstrates an ignorance of the purpose of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and all that it's accomplished. Obliterating a whole category system that was come up with by indigenous editors and those working with them who are aware of the issues about such articles and categories, and imposing "guidelines" as some kind of mandate to wipe them out of Wikipedia is not a very constructive, or considerate path, to be sure.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorising persons by ethnicity. And if we did away with that, a person could be categorised the way other persons are. Last I checked, there is no shortage of ways a person may be categorised.
    Now, that said, this category includes more than persons, which is one of its issues. So setting aside the question of catgorising people by ethincity, this category should probably be clearer in inclusion criteria. If it's just to be people, then the rename should be to "Squamish people" (per existing guidelines), and if about the topic, then it should be to "Squamish". - jc37 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • for what seems like the 100th time, the primary usage of "Squamish" is Squamish, British Columbia. For the same reason, on in part, St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemc and Ktunaxa were all restored to their long-standing endonym titles; there is a reason for the distinction, and also because in each of those cases, the primary meaning of Lillooet, Thompson [people], Chilcotin, Shuswap and Kootenay/Kutenai/Kootenai is different; and the peoples themselves prefer the use of them. This is not so much the case with Skwxwu7mesh though you do see it around in journalism, artist or band reviews and so on. Consistency was the issue; if certain people e.g. the Sto:lo or the Kwakwaka'wakw have no other suitable name, and so those are the names of their articles, and there were reasons across the board re government structures, shared reserves and more, to have separate categories...and to respect the traditional names - which in Canada at the expected norm now.Skookum1 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not only do these people identify and classify themselves and regard themselves as distinct from "no shortage of ways a person may be categorized", which is a complete fallacy. In Canada, they are defined constitutionally as such, and governed differently. And they make a distinction between their people and their modern government; just as their are bands (many) of the Sto:lo who regard themselves as such bare not part of any other government or either tribal council. And though I'm not aboriginal, it was aboriginal wikipedians who came up with using the endonym forms (such as skxwu7mesh but many others) as the best way to deal with the distinction between their individual local cultural identities and their varying system of overlapping governments....and that people here over and over do not actually seem to have any concept of the town of Squamish vs the people of Squamish, and say they should not be classified anyway (never mind that their whole history has been about being classified....and thereby disenfranchised and disinherited), I really don't get. This is about real people and a real place, it isn't just about guidelines. For both "Squamish" and "Squamish people", the primary reference is to the town (well, district actually), not the Skwxwu7mesh people or the Squamish Nation. This and other categories were named in many cases by members of these peoples, or in some cases by leading academics working closely with them. A consensus was reached, a standard formulated loosely but never published as a WP: essay or guideline for consideration...including apparently a special section on name-conflicts with better-known primary uses of the "most common" as a table, with a map....the complexities of native geopolitics are involved too as to why the endonyms were preferred, but the namespace collision with places in many cases, including in Washington and Oregon and so on, is why native content guidelines were in evolution; they are needed still...in all cases, seeing any of these endonyms in English-language articles in journalism or travel books or curriculum is an accepted convention in Canadian English; and Canadian English is to be used in Canadian articles. And in many cases, it's unavoidable e.g. Nuu-chah-nulth...or in Mexico [[Nezahualcoyotl] that terms that are "not pronounceable in English" are very common in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Ojibwe, Anishinaabe and WP:IPNA/Nish were brought up as esamples, let me summarise quickly the online and offline (and even face-to-face) conversations that resulted in that subproject's umbrellaship. "Ojibwe" is a good for this discussion. We went around and around if Ojibwe, Ojibway or Ojibwa ought to be used; we were all in agreement Chippewa ought to avoided, but needed to figure out how to tie "Chippewa" hits to the one we chose, other than with redirects. As Federal government names for tribes do change with policy, we finally agreed to use tribe's name for consistency, but to use the southern Fiero spelling of "Ojibwe" over English "Ojibway" or "Ojibwa" or the northern Fiero spelling of "Ocipwe". In order for the support mechanism to work we also had to whole series of redirects, create alternative names pages (see List of Ojibwa ethnonyms where even the associated pages were free in the spelling). And there are still issues to hash out and we haven't worked through them all! One of the important key aspects we found is that if you work and/or live in Indian Country (in the US) or among First Nations (in Canada), one gets a very good sense of how the peoplehood identifies themselves, not what the Canadian or the US Government insists on calling the people, and which Romanisation is more frequently encounted in the communities. Generally, those are the ones that eventually becomes the norms in English, and across Canada and US, "Ojibwe" is accepted spelling.
Now, Ojibwe language scholars who devised the various Romanisation orthographies were careful in ensuring that spelling would be kept easy as possible, which works just fine for Ojibwe (and other Anishinaabe) languages and also for Cree languages, but when languages have more complex sound systems and English based typewriters (before the dawn of wordprocessing and the internet and UNICODE standards) were then only available easy "people's press", indigenous peoples and their languages had to resort to what was technologically cheap. Such was the case for Skwxwu7mesh, because the old typewriters didn't have a ʔ for a glottal stop character, "7" was used as its substitute and eventually the norm. Among Indigenous peoples "Skwxwu7mesh" is the standard when communicating in English, and "Squamish" is found only in non-indigenous writings in English... granted even "Skwxwu7mesh" is a simplification of "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh". And today as electronic typesetting is becoming very accessable to the public, even among the "Skwxwu7mesh", there may be a push by some to use "Skwxwuʔmesh" or "Sḵwx̱wúʔmesh" and one of these other spelling may eventually become "standard" in English. But until then, "Skwxwu7mesh" is the spelling I have seen consistantly in indiginous communications in English and "Squamish" in non-indigenous communications in English. So the question really boils down to which accepted "English" spelling are you going to choose for Wikipedia: the spelling per the indigenous people's use of Engoish or the spelling per the non-indigenous people's use of English? Before changing categories or spellings associated with that, you must first answer that basic question and come to an agreement. Once that happens, everything else will fall into place and the necessay Wikipedia magic of redirects and lists can be generated. CJLippert (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worth noting that it's not just the native peoples but their neighbours who use such terms, and that the native peoples are, by and large, native-English speakers as are (most of) their neighbours. Is English spoken by aboriginal people somehow not English? The issue of external non-aboriginal users deciding what native people should be called is obviously questionable and more than a bit chauvinist, though for asserting that in the RMs *I* was accused of being local and "parochial" and people got hot under the collar saying I'd accused them of racism. The conundrum in that is apparent to you and me, of course.....RE Navajo/Dineh I'd thought there had been Category:Dineh or similar, don't see it in the category history; but suffice to say that Category:Mi'kmaq and others on the Canadian side exist (though there the "FOO people" change was made, by the same editor as too many others, for the main article, which had been at Mi'kmaq). I hear lots of talk about consistency of Wikipedia guidelines as a whole, but consistency within IPNA and CANENGL categories and article titles trumps "global Wikipedia". Homogenization according to perceived "most common" has the obvious danger of reverting scads of titles to unacceptable, colonialist-era names now in disfavour. But like so much already said before, these issues don't see to make much dint on those rationalizing this very bad category name and the accompanying very questionable RM result....Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put the "no non-English words/characters in English Wikipedia to bed once and for all:

This is not an exhaustive list, just things I've noted around the RM talkpage and in various readings......other examples exist withing Canadian FN articles, though I've only mentioned Kii?in here so far (anglicism for that is "Keeshan"). That the RM which precipitated this category was partly decided on this fallacious argument/point calls its legitimacy, once again, into question. As does the point that the "anglicism+people" article changes which were also used as the basis of the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish RM were all undiscussed and controversial, and five nominated have all been overturned and restored to their endonym forms, is the central issue here now, other than the obvious fact that the current category name is not workable.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Whistler Valley[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Whistler, British Columbia. The usage "Whistler Valley" takes in the whole of the municipality, though the muni includes the Callaghan Valley meaning that items in "Whistler Valley" though in the RMOW are not in the "Valley" per se; "Whistler Valley" is a common local usage, but not official or citable in any way. Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cree nations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus there was too much arguing and not enough evidence here. I then looked at a sample of the articles most of them are about groupings (bands, Nations etc) and not specially governments, i.e. ruling bodies. Our article nation fits the content better than government. It may be better to start the discussion afresh with more evidence on common naming and less attack s on other editors.--Salix (talk): 13:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "nations" is too vague a term, what are in this category are governments. Note Category:Sto:lo governments, Category:Nlaka'pamux governments and others; pondering creating List of Cree governments or List of Cree First Nations governments, which could be the "main" article (as there isn't one). capital-n "Nation" is often used by FN governments, but in lower case it has a whole host of different meanings. Main thrust of this CfD is to harmonize with other ethnically-defined governments categories such as those proposed, which are subcats of Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia; not all of those in the Cree category would in in Category:First Nations governments in Alberta, of course. Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Use Common Name. I get the feeling "government" has been a less popular and more negative-sounding term especially of late. First Nations in Canada are more often called "Nations". They may technically be governments, but it's a matter of using the style that is more commonly found, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Scuse me "using the style that is more commonly found" is completely offbase as a statement when it's NOT capital-N "Nation" that's the titles, and when "the style that is more commonly found" is already established in other FN government categories. "nation" has also been used to mean IRs (Indian Reserves) synonymously with their governments and with their ethnic identity; it's not a correct usage and far too vague for categorization purposes; "nation" is a politically loaded term in Canada, and not just in regard to FN governments or peoples; The existing category name is not workable and just because it's both vague and has multiple meanings; whereas "Cree governments" is both exact and accurate.Skookum1 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, and that still doesn't make "Cree governments" a commonly used name (or not a "politically loaded" name). If the little n is bothering you, why not just change it to "Category:Cree Nations"? I would support that move. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Canadian? Do you have any particular knowledge of these peoples and what their governments are and what the norms in Canadian English are?? Category:Cree First Nations addresses what they call themselves and are registered with the Canadian government; stand-alone 'N' does NOT and has a whole load of political implications. And within conventions developed by WPCANADA and WP Indigenous peoples of North Am, "First Nations" as a stand=alone use refers to the peoples, "First Nations governments" to their Indian Act governments (not their traditional ones, such as may survive in some cases). cf Category:First Nations in British Columbia vs Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia. And/or the parent Canada cats. You're proposing the retrenchment of an anomaly on the one hand, or failing that the creation of a new one.Skookum1 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] The parent or grandparent cat is Category:First Nations governments. What you're suggesting means that this is wrong, and should be Category:First Nations nations.Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. Why are logical fallacies such as recasting your opponent's argument into something easier to attack instead of letting his own words speak for himself so "in" these days? As a matter of fact, I do have particular knowledge of the Cree in Canada, and good friends who are full blooded Cree First Nations, but that's neither here nor there really. I can;t tell from the above if you are suggesting "Category: Cree First Nations" would be an even better improvement, but if so, I would agree with you since that is demonstrably the most common name, not "Cree governments" which seems in this particular case to be a nonce coinage. I am generally a fan of going on a case by case basis, rather than trying to force everything into one boilerplate of "consistency" simply because it is in an area vaguely related to something else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was quite the battle a while ago re Mohawk, Mohawk people, Haudenosaunee and Mohawk Nation....this is starting to smell the same way. Cast in light the ad hominem nature of your lack of support for the obvious solution, i.e. "consistency" which you deem to disdain (?) as being "vaguely related examples" when what has been supplied by way of PRECEDENTS are closely related categories, i.e. parent and cousin categories of the one in question. And btw, people in Washington say "Frazhier River" and I've seen it spelled in Washington publications as "Frazier River", that doesn't make that useful as a cite; anything but. The further issue here is norms within Canadian English, which is what these terms are in all their loaded and unloaded senses, and Canadian English applies to Canadian articles (which these are, predominantly, unless you know of some Cree governments in Wisconsin or Minnesota?). And the distinction between "government", "people" and "reserve/reservation" and "language" articles has been around the Indigenous project as a guideline for a long time; you belong to that project, not sure since how long, but you don't seem to give a fig for the existing guidelines/precedents and would rather cite "I have some Cree friends" as your reason.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noting you're also describing them as Cree First Nations, short for Cree First Nations people/person; an adjectival use, not the same as when "First Nation" occurs as a government name; different matter

re people, given your COMMONUSE invocation, is that the most common usage in English at large for the people(s) remains "Indian". Your example of an adjectival use vs the nominative; i.e. a person is not a government nor a nation; in their dreams, or in their bedrooms maybe, but not in the same context. Most FN people I know describe themselves by their nation or language or particular subgroup even, unless referring to the status of aboriginal and culture etc....."indigenous" and "aboriginal" are easier and also in more an more current use especially around youth or the educated; it's a term that also happen to be cross-border, which Native American and First Nation as terms aren't). The point remains that you advocate preserving an anomaly in the current categorization hierarchy by ignoring the conventions and terminology already in place. And which have reason to be the way they are. And re my edit comment just previous, I'm just frustrated at how much time it takes to do something simple around here, that seems simple and logical and inline with the way things are, it turns out to take me three days. Too many guidelines, often conflicting, too many counter-arguments.......anyways, so tell me, for Category:Cree nations, what's its parent category? Category:Canadian nations?? Category:North American nations?? No, somewhere in Category:Ingigenous peoples of North America. Now tell me how many subcategories have lower-case 'n' "nation"? Interesting question, why don't I look now? Gee how 'bout that....Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, it sounds like your frustration is because you're not the only editor here, and you don't get to dictate consensus all by yourself. You pointedly asked me if I knew any Cree people. When I replied "Yes, but that's neither here nor there", it's as if you didn't comprehend what that means and tried to use my answering your question to entrap me. No doubt if the answer had been "No, I don't" you would find some way to use that against me as well. Do you have anything else to add or are you just going to stamp your foot angrily and demand once more that everyone else follow your system? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How very nice of you to diagnose me, Til, since you're the one doing the frustrating. What I'm frustrated about is the incredible amount of time it takes for a simple category change so it matches other categories in the same hierarchy. You clearly don't want to consider the existing Category:Nuu-cha-nulth governments and Category:Tshilqot'in governments and want to talk about your Cree First Nations friends to justify either keeping this category as-is or changing it to a completely new norm; invoking a word that has already been much-discussed at the IPNA project and used with caution and mindful of its problematic meaning; and I'm actually out there creating articles for the Cree governments, and want a category name that makes SENSE. Explain to me where Category:FOO nations fits into the hierarchy of categories already extant. It DOESN'T. Don't patronize me again, it's boring.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Category:Cree First Nations governments ? - It looks like many of the individual articles (most of which are "FOO First Nation") get parent categories of both Category:Cree nations and Category:First Nations governments in FOO PROVINCE. Plus there are a few articles that are places, bands, and a group of people (apparently neither a band nor a First Nation). So it seems like the organizations of folks qualify as both "governments" and the historical/ethnic groups. ... It also seems that Cree is the first of a set of categories along the First Nations line, as opposed to by province. So it would be good to get this right, if it's going to be aAdd template for future expansion by other peoples. ... I'm just putting those comments out there for correction if I've misunderstood something. ... All that said, it seems like the title derived from Skookum1's proposed list, Category:Cree First Nations governments, would both align the category with the "FOO governments" parents, be quite clear about what the contained articles are, and use the terminology that is their registered names with the Canadian government. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the FIRST??? Have you not looked at Category:Sto:lo governments, Category:Kwakwaka'wakw governments? Category:Coast Salish governments? Or have you not looked at Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia's subcategories? What do you mean the first? Unless you're proposing that that term be used to equate "nation"="band government". This category is, or shloud be, for band governments. Adding in the adjectival use of "First Nations" into the title makes it only worse, as the sense of the term in "a First Nation" meaning an aboriginal government mandated by the Indian Act, vs "First Nations government" is totally different in context/association. Those delineations of meaning were developed by indigenous editors, by the way. I am NOT, as accused "a consensus of one"......I speak for a consensus that's been operating in indigenous articles and categories for years now.....and I'm not "anti-sensus" which is what I see someone else here being.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What do you mean 'the FIRST'???" -- I mean, looking at the top-level category Category:First Nations governments, all the sub-categories are currently Provinces. I see that there are lots of articles within the Province subcategories, but it the category trees are not fully expanded. So it looks like the "first" fully expanded category tree. ... I have no vested interests. I was looking at all the comments from you (Skookum1) & Til Eulenspiegel. It looked like Til Eulenspiegel thinks "First Nations" is appropriate terminology within the category name, and it looked like you had discussed having it within a list title. Are you saying that Category:Cree First Nations governments does not work for anything? or just that it does not work for all the groups, such as bands? --Lquilter (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point there is the term "governments" is used and it's because they're about band governments, they're not about municipalities with Cree populations or councils. It's a special kind of government (boy is it ever), and while other provinces don't seem to have "[ENDONYM] governments" there's a whack in BC that obviously do (Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia contains the ones that exist so far (in Nova Scotia all band governments are Mi'kmaq, for example....NB Category:Coast Salish governments and Category:Ktunaxa governments, where they to exist, would be cross-border and so the term "First Nation(s)" is unusable; if there are Cree governments in the US (and I believe there indeed are, the Category:Cree First Nations governments would not be viable; you might as well write "Tashilhqot'in Native American governments" even though there are no Tsilhqot'in in the United States, not band governments anyways, maybe some individuals I guess. "nations" has no hierarchy at all it belongs in....though it seems if this "FOO First Nations governments" idea were to be accepted it's going to cause even more CfDs, and get "all tangled up".......There is no "Haida governments" category yet (there's only the Skidegate and Masset bands and the overall Council of the Haida Nation in BC, but if it were to be created it would have to include the Haida political organizations in Alaska, so "First Nations" is unusable as a modifier....not that it's not completely redundant to start with, which it is.Skookum1 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't supposed you happened to look at the provincial subcategories huh? BC's in particular? Point is there is a series of endonym-based categories, for BC at least (I'll check the other provinces).....and note, there is a big distinction (ignored by my "opponent", who doesn't "get it", between the adjectival use of "First Nations" meaning "aboriginal but not Metis or Inuit" and its use as a title by any organization (not all such organizations are governments NB)......ditto in the nominative sense (noun)....and the increasingly common convention in Canadian English is for the adjectival use to be lower case, not capitalized. It has too many meanings to be useful unless qualified; and while Category:Cree First Nations government might seem OK, it's a given that Cree are a First Nations people ("first nations people" in the new usage) it is therefore redundant in the category name to include it.....and some call themselves "Nation", some still use "Indian Band"....but why should this category be the exception to the many already out there? My intention here was to harmonize with other similar existing stable categories, do I have to list them again? "Nations" is too vague a term, also POV like "First Nations" (a term that was invented for political reasons and is "overly politically correct" to the point of being awkward (for a while you'd write "she is a first nations person" when you could simply have said "she is aboriginal" or the still-most-common "she is an Indian"); the claim that "Cree First Nations" is a "most common use" to refer to band governments is rubbish, it can mean several things including the ethnic group itself and any subject to do with Cree; "Cree governments" is specific to the concept of band government (I doubt that article is a redirect to First Nations government or First Nations governance, though it may be). We're not talking about "nations" here in any of its possible meanings, and as noted elsewhere in this "discussion" if you ask an aboriginal person, say any of my many St'at'imc friends (including chiefs and elders) if they say "my nation" they mean their people and NOT the band government or the Tribal Council (St'at'imc Nation/Lillooet Tribal Council, it goes by both). There is no need to qualify "Cree governments" with the adjectival use of "First Nations".....and if you were to do that, the onus would be to embrace the emerging use of lower case forms in adjectival situations. And does "Cree First Nation" mean a band, or does it mean the whole people, and also in the non-governmental sense? it means all of those and then some; it's too vague and "liquid" of a term for the specific descriptiveness needed in catnames. The Cree are a First Nation.....so including that term is redundant and more than a bit POV in flavour; and that context refers to the actual "Cree nation" i.e. the Cree people(s). And again, I'll refer to the conventions of the WP:Indigenous peoples of North America wikiproject which is where the delineation of band vs people vs language vs reserve categories came from, it's not been fully applied across the board; but it was a workable standard and work-in-progress; hard to sort out on the Canadian Prairies for various reasons where "First Nation" is also a synonym for the physical reserve and also for the band government...sometimes for the tribal council or treaty group. NB Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia subcats exist because there are so many different ethnic groups (where "nations" would refer to those, not to band governments); in most Canadian provinces there's only a few, rarely several ethnic groups. All of whom are "nations" also, which is the other use of that term that's very different from "band government".....Skookum1 (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd support Lquilter's proposal (Category:Cree First Nations governments) because CFN is the common name, coupled with "governments" with a small g, leaving no ambiguity there... Something about "Cree governments" though (without specifying "First Nations") just sounded wrong, like trying to rename what is already commonly called "Cree First Nations". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Commonly called".....show me that cite. Your confusion as to the use of First Nations as an adjective vs its meaning as a noun is at the core of this silly proposal; or are you going to insist that Category:Kwakwaka'wakw governments become Category:Kwakwaka'wakw First Nations governments and that's the new standard? What about ones that call themselves "Indian Band"?? This is a category for governments, not for "peoples" or "nations" or "First Nations" in the blurry sense it can be used in (meaning aboriginal, as an adjective, and a clumsy one at that). You're pushing your own "consensus of one" Til, and I find you contrary and positing irrelevant arguments while being completely dismissive about the existence of the other categories this one deserves to be brought in line with "[ethnonym] governments" and want to toss around "nation" and "First Nation" without fully understanding how they're used and what their implications are. You really don't. Or you just enjoy muddying water. When was the last time you worked on a band government article, or any indigenous article's content? How many have you created?02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Is the problem that "FOO First Nations" is representative of only some groups, but not, for example, bands? Or is it that the terminology is disputed for all groups? --Lquilter (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some call themselves Bands, some say Indian Band, some use capital-N Nation, some use First Nation....some don't bother with any English term. AND nb again "FOO First Nations" is not specifically in reference to governments, which is what this category is for.Skookum1 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting this here, though made mention of it somewhere, though also in response to your question above, the Chippewa-Cree Tribe in Montana are a federally-recognized tribe in the US, they are not a "First Nation" which has meaning only in Canada. They're the only one, though former Cree territories in the US were once quite extensive......and NB have a look at [[9]] and note that those are a mix of government articles and reserve and town articles, and far more than what is now in Category:Cree nations are yet to be included, including Naskapi, Montagnais etc, all of whom are part of the "greater Cree nation" in the same way the Sekani and Tahltan and Tshilqot'in - and Dineh in the US - are part of the "greater Dene nation". The list of communities given is an example of how there are still articles where government, community, and the physical reserve articles have not yet (all) been created/established; there's not enough editors to go around at the best of times....never mind Cree editors (I looked at hte participants list in IPNA just now, there's quite a few Ojibway/Ojibwe which probably accounts of the WikiProject/working group for the Anishinaabe.Skookum1 (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the above it sounds very much like the problem is that there is an unstated minimum number of "indigenous articles' content" to have worked on or created, to get the franchise to participate in this conversation. So I sure hope you meet that requirement, because no doubt the required minimum is way higher than the number I've worked on or created. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"to get the franchise to participate in this conversation" is another putting-words-in-my-mouth accusation here; what I was meaning is that I've been in IPNA virtually first my first days in Wikipedia and took part in the debates/consensus that evolved there....I'm also Canadian and understand the many, differing, and confusing uses of "First Nations" in Canada (which are even more varied in the plural form than the singular "First Nation".....and aware of the PC-POV origins of the term, and the PC nature of how it gets used....and all too aware how its meaning is muddied by juxtaposing its different meanings within the same discussion/frame of reference....your "franchise" is unneeded; an open mind IS especially given the wrong ways and false claims you've made about its use and how it's used. All misunderstandings on your part from not being exposed to this term on a daily basis as Canadians are......and all I hear here is an accusation made so you don't have to acknowledge the existing "FOO governments" categories; in fact it's when I make a point that you go on teh personal attack against me and my motives.....watch that ANI-threat you waved around here, it could wind up pointing in your direction......Skookum1 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to lecture me about "having an open mind" for not automatically agreeing with you, while ASSuming I'm not Canadian or don't live / never lived in Canada? (Like that's got anything to do with the price of tea in China) Gotta love it. And I never once used the term "ANI". See ya! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
man, so you're gonna say you didn't make this WPTHREAT " The next personal attack you make against me will result in steps being taken." If that's not a reference to an ANI what is it then? You're gonna send bikers over? Lawyers? You're the combative and accusatory one here my friend, and you keep backing out of things you say while hurling mud in my direction and now making threats of "taking action". and yes, it does have to do whether you live in Canada or not because this debate is about the meaning of terms in that country and it's not about "global English". This is a (near-entirely Canadian category) and CANENGLISH applies.....it's also an Anishinaabe matter, in fact, now that I've looked over who all is listed on the Cree page.....cl;early the nuances of "nations" and "first nations" (capped and otherwise) in CAnada do matter here.....as does that horrible bugbear of a word that you oppose as "suspect"...."government". It's very current for first nations persons in Canada now to look askance at their governments, i.e their band governments, by whatever label....very common, and this was part of hte Idle No More movement's basis and the reactions to the chiefs kinda hijacking it......you do know what I'm talking about, I hope, if you're as informed on Canada as your "how do you know I don't live in CAnada" rejoinder (uh, I looked at your userpage.....). This category is not about First Nations as a general topic, which is vast, or as a term even, because it has so many uses it can mean several things.....this category is about band governments which are NOT the same as the Cree nation, and though individual bands do call themselves e.g. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation or Piapot First Nation that does not mean that the people of those reserves see themselves as different or distinct nations. There is one great Cree nation, as you'll hear their writers and pundits like Wab Kinew say, they are not divided into "nations" - or weren't, until the Indian Act did that to them and set up band governments = which is what his category is meant to categorize. I'm done (for now)....I suppose you'll now claim this whole exegesis of the Cree Fact is another post of mine you're going to call a personal attack now? Hm yah probably.Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the IPNA convention - consensus - that caused the Category:First Nations in British Columbia to refer to something different than Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia (or Alberta, Sask, etc) was established a very long time ago. In the first one the nominative sense of the phrase is used, Meaning non-Metis, non-Inuit aboriginal groups, as per the legal definition of that term as a noun - actually it's constitutional - whereas in the second one the distinction is that "First Nations" there is an adjective, also in its constitutional meaning to distinguish from Metis and Inuit governments. Category:Cree governments fits into the existing hierarchy structure and existing parameters for categories of indigenous governments; it's not vague in the slightest, whereas Category:Cree nations IS. "Cree First Nations governments" is redundant, and would establish a new "precedent" and cause a whole series of more CfDs....this comment isn't for Til, but for experienced editors who may stop by and are looking for logic rather than grandstanding about the use of the word "nations" who play disingenuous about that word's loaded political contexts and vaguenesses. "Governments" isn't vague at all, though some people want to insist that it is.Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you keep pointing at other tribes expecting us to lump them all into the same system... And once again, you seem to fail to comprehend the expression "neither here nor there" when I say whether or not I have Cree friends is "neither here nor there", and once again you attempt to make an issue out of it (which I still feel would have been done whether I'd answered in the affirmative or the negative.) And yes, I do think you are attempting to be a "consensus of one". (so far). Your primary argument seems to be insisting on a rigid consistency, on the principle that all native groups need to be treated alike regardless of how unique or different their circumstances are. I think perhaps Emerson "diagnosed" you better than I ever could with his famous lines on the hobgoblin of "consistency". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, just the fact that you said 'it seems to me...' and cited your personal friends is clearly out of the ballpark on this one. 'lumping them all together in the same system' when you are proposing keeping them out of that system, which addresses names to be used for all indigenous peoples of North America is nonsense; you are the one who made an issue out of the supposed acceptibility of the term 'nations' but there's not a single other indigenous category by that name (maybe one or two, looking around the FN and NA categories right now to see if there are any, to my knowledge there are none. my primary argument isn't what you say it is or are claiming it is, also, 'the hobgoblin of consistency' is a standard Wiki practice, and in fact it's why all the various other CfRs because someone imposed a 'consistency' that wasn't. So you refuse to acknowledge the parallel/cousin categories huh? Why is that exactly? Because to you the Cree are special??Skookum1 (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
quote "I get the feeling "government" has been a less popular and more negative-sounding term especially of late." if that's not spurious original research and demonstrably and obviously POV, then I don't know what is.Skookum1 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me a trap question, do I have any knowledge about Cree people. My answer was "Yes I do, but it's neither here not there." Do you have any problem understanding the expression "neither here nor there" or do I need to explain it to you? Unbelievable, you are STILL continuing to attempt to make the fact that I answered "yes" into an issue, just as you would have done if my answer had been "no". That's known as a "trick question" or a "Catch 22" since by your little game, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Likewise, the fact that I use expressions such as "it seems to me" or "I get the feeling" to give caution to my observations is no reason for you to jump on me. You are clearly going over my words with your fine toothed comb to hector me because you don't like the way I voted in this cfd. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like what you're saying in this CfD, and "votes" only carry weight if they are valid. Yours aren't. The wiki-fact you keep in ignoring .is that all other Canadian band government categories do NOT use "nations" and there's good reason for that; but you're only interested in your own false logics, and in arguing "nonce" issues ....yes I did ask you that, but not intending it as a trick question; but it was you who supplied the nostrum-rationalization, based on hearsay, that 'nations' is a norm, as if it was (and it's not); I didn't say that, you did. You also claimed, without my prompting, that 'governments' is somehow more pov/political than 'nations' when the obvious is clearly the case to anyone truly knowledgeable about the subject of First Nations politics in Canada....you've also muddled the invocation of "First Nations" as an adjective vs. a noun, as if that were valid...and it's not.Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you get to propose a CfD AND you get to decide that all votes you don't like are overruled? Why bother going through the charade of a vote then? Sounds like you're trying to be judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up in one... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Judge not, lest ye be judged. I proposed a CfD to get this category in line with other governments for Canadian First Nations, not to listen to someone blather about how the term 'governments' is suspect and POV and who ignores the point that "nations" is far more laced with POV and political overtones, in Canadian English at large and in native culture. As for hearsay, native people *I* know (and I know many) might use the term small-case "nation" to refer to their people; they rarely use it to refer to their band government, if ever. Your "vote" has flaws all over it, and now you're whining because someone pointed them out? Why are you in CfDs anyway, yourself? If you can't admit that your knowledge of the subject isn't sufficient to pontificate that "nations" is preferable to "governments", even though the latter is a demonstrable norm, seems to me that you have in mind further CfDs to change all the other band government categories as the result of making this one your precedent. Category:Cree nations is not acceptable; Category:Cree First Nations govermments is needless dross, when it's obvious that Cree governments are First Nations governments (unless there are any registered Cree tribes in the US, which there may indeed by - but they won't be "First Nations governments" as you are prescribing these be called, as an alternative to the untenable, vague and very POV insistence that "nation" is the same thing as "First Nations government" or "band government". Quite simply, that's poppycock. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the other "FOO governments" categories? Or do you expect them also to be "FOO nations" or "FOO First Nations governments"?? The only vote that counts here is that of the person who closes the discussion; and so far your points that you think you have made have all been blown out of the water, though you refuse to admit this and are now engaged in whining and accusations. There's still five days to go, I have no doubt that others will come along endorsing the "governments" change and putting the lie to your claim that "nations" is somehow accurate and not "suspect" or "POV" when it's clearly "all of the above".Skookum1 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came here to express my earnest opinion, and you've turned this into an ad hominem against me for not agreeing with you. The next personal attack you make against me will result in steps being taken. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • gets tiresome being personally attacked by people who've been doing that to you, and who is it that goes to the adminship to get the other guy a spanking? Probably the one that started the fight.....your branding some detailed comment as "a "nonce" argument" is on such attack....highly patronizing and ill-spoken, since so many of your logics and definitions fail critical examination and counter-example tests with such such....enthusiasm? It's like you want an ANI and have been contrary just to get he famous Skookum1 back up so you can emote there too....it says on my page "don't back a sasquatch into a corner"...... oh, so now, yeah, you can say I personally attacked you again, as if you haven't repeatedly attacked me, and are now going to run to the adminship. All because you don't like the word "governments" and think you're being politically correct and modern by insisting on "nations", even claiming it's the most common usage when it's not. "Band government" is.....in English, not "nations". No wonder I quit Wikipedia before - when all my time gets taken up by people arguing inanities over simple things......lots of editors entreatied me to come back because of my knowledge and resources and prodigious output on various topics and projects....and you want to have an ANI to cap off the fun we've had on this CfD. Curious as to what else you've done in the last few days on Wikipedia, you should have a look at where I've been.....go ahead, hold the ANI tar and feather me, get me blocked....I'd welcome it, when I have to deal with nonsense like this day in and day out.....this isn't user-generated content anymore, it's user-obfuscated content......Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's painfully obvious that you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you in the slightest. I have no desire to get you blocked, but you do need to chill out and take a reality check. Since it's important to you, most of what I know of the Cree POV comes from my days at Kings College Dalhousie, decades ago. To you it's a big deal whether or not I'm Canadian. To my Cree associates this question would be insulting and irrelevant nonsense, because they made no bones about the fact that they saw the US-Canada border as an artificial line drawn across their homeland that was meaningless to them. They also preferred to call themselves Nehiyowa rather than Cree, but I'm not suggesting we adopt that term. They also saw themselves as First Nations, not because anybody told them they could call themselves that, but because they were there first. But really none of this matters so much as whether or not they are called that in Canadian English. You say the term is "fraught with political considerations". Please be explicit: what are the "political implications", why don't you tell us that? You want to make this all about me for some reason. Is everyone else taking part in this discussion required to have lived in Canada, required to have knowledge of the Cree, required to make articles about "indigenous" topics? I have created only 28 articles according to Soxred's Tools, and of those 28 I created, only 8 were about Indigenous topics. Do I qualify? Do you have any more silly, "damned if I do, damned if I don't" rules that apply only to me and nobody else? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not, I do have a couple more points to make. 1) Not all "governments" around the world rely on a concept of drawing a sharp distinction between the "people" and the "government" dictating to the people. For many, especially tribal groups, there is literally a government "of, by, and for the people" and no such distinction can possibly be drawn. I believe it is like that for most Cree tribal groups, that is to say, to speak of the "Cree government" is basically to speak of the "Cree people" because they are more or less the same thing, not that there is a separate Cree government that dictates to and lords it over the people; rather (at least traditionally) all adults of the tribe have some say or role in matters of their "government". Therefore I believe "Category:Cree First Nations governments" as proposed by Lquilter above is the appropriate compromise to hold all of these disparate groups. 2) Much of the argument for "consistency" we're seeing is argument by precedent, or argument by analogy. This is actually a fallacy similar to a slippery slope, although unfortunately it is all too common in some systems of jurisprudence. Appealing to precedent in an analogous situation and insisting on that again, saves one the trouble of having to explain why a proposition is logical in the first place, or logical in this instance. But sometimes what is being pointed at as a fait accomplis was a bad decision in that other case as well. It's like saying "this was already decided on another occasion, by another set of people, so now it is an unstoppable steam roller that must be applied across the board, overruling all objections." It's far better to take things on a case by case basis since conditions are not the same everywhere and most analogies are flawed anyway. Those were my two additional points, thank you for reading this far. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THIS - "For many, especially tribal groups, there is literally a government "of, by, and for the people" and no such distinction can possibly be drawn." is a clear demonstration how clueless you are about the subject and, I'd say, obstinately ill-informed. These governments were IMPOSED by Indian and Northern Affairs to supplant traditional governance, and the governments in question are NOT equivalent to "the peoples" and in fact that's the whole basis of the recent Idle No More uprising, which wasn't just against federal abuse of native rights but also against the maladminstration of band governments....if you really knew anything about Canadian FN politics, you'd know that lots of band councils are held in deep disregard by their people, and many communities have tooth-and-nail quarrels over this; Musqueam and Squamish and Tsawwassen come immediately to mind, but they're not alone. Insisting on the loosey-goosey and more-than-a-bit-POV "nations" induces the mis-use of the category for non-band government articles. And the lower-casing of "nations" Wiki-style flies apposite to the use of "first nations" (which in adjectival form should be lower cased) vs "First Nations" or "Nations" (many call themselves "Indian Band" - and the Montana group of course is not a "First Nation".....and I'll repeat again, your claim that the band governments are "governments by the people, of the people, for the people" demonstates an abysmal lack of knkowledge about Canadian FN politics and governance.Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couple more points. First, this conversation seems to have gone south when I first stated in my initial argument that "Cree governments" is a "nonce coinage". That was the only time I have used the word "nonce" on this page until now. Since then, you have used the word "nonce" four times on this page, and three times in edit summaries to this page, in the phrases "nonce argument" and "nonce issues", and it is evident you took very deep offense at my use of the word. However, your response suggests that you don't quite know what "nonce" means. It is not at all related to the word "nonsense" if that's perhaps what you thought. It is actually related to the word "once". When I stated that "Cree governments" is a "nonce coinage", what I am saying is that it is the opposite of the "most commonly used term in English", that is, "Cree governments" is a seldom used or rarely encountered phrase for "Cree First Nations" governments. This is a perfectly legitimate argument and should not have caused such rancour and indignation on your part. As for "nonce arguments" or "nonce issues", I'm really not certain what in the world those would mean, since those are themselves "nonce phrases".
Second point. Is it not true that you are bound by the same rules as all the rest of us? I know you're a Sasquatch and all, but would it really be acceptable for any other editor here to try to find sympathetic editors to weigh in on your side here, and then as if that weren't enough, go to a sympathetic admin's talkpage (User talk:Bearcat) and pointedly suggest: "I'm trying to find informed editors to come have a look; ther'es four days in the CfD left to go, I think.....the only votes that count is that of who closes it"? It seems you are basically suggesting that this admin wait until the time runs out, then come in and close it in your favor, even if nobody else here so far has agreed with you. If anything needs to go to ANI here, that would be it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking me huh? CJLippert is in the core group of WP:Anishinaabe and that group should be involved in this, for sure. Bearcat is a senior Canadian admin familiar with problems of Canadian English and also FN politics and governance. It's clear someone with more knowledge of this subject is needed here, as it went south when you made your specious claim that "governments" is a "nonce word" and that governments are specious. And again, you impugn an ANI or "further action" (by bitching about my apparent polling, when really I was looking for expertise and someone familiar with the field) - all by way of ignoring my very valid points about the vagueness of "nation" and the BIG difference between an Indian Act band government vs. a "nation". Your arguments continue to be specious and off the wall and very ignorant about the state of community governance in Canada. I've wasted enough breath on you; your arguments and position are off-the-wall and make huge leaps of non-logic, and also wallow in the vagueness and multiple meanings of "nations"; this is not about the people, nor is it about traditional governments, it's about BAND GOVERNMENTS.Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you still haven't got it quite right. A) "Stalking" refers to following your contributions around and reverting them. If I happen to notice that you are canvassing sympathetic editors and admins whom you think see things the same way you do, and especuially appealing for the admin to be the closer of the CfD, then I am doing right to raise the issue here, and possibly on ANI as well. B) No, I didn't say "governments" is a "nonce word". Making one more last ditch attempt to twist my argument into something I never said? In fact. what I said is that "Cree governments" is a "nonce coinage". In other words, you want wikipedia to use it as a category, when outside of wikipedia-land it is rarely used in that sense, and "Cree First Nations" is the normal phrase seen in that sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO IT'S NOT. No matter how often you make that specious claim, it doesn't make it true, And it doesn't remove the ambiguity of "nations" nor your misinterpretation that (LOLOL) band governments are "of the people, by the people, for the people". That's a crock. There are no precedents for "FOO nations" re NA/FN categories, and there are precedents (yes, which I and User:OldManRivers developed) for "FOO governments". "Cree First Nations" can mean peoples, it can mean governments, it can even be an adjective for a Cree person, even a nominative; you don't care about any of that, you just want to make up reasons to ANI me....funny about that, you seem busy in ANIs too....do you write any actual articles?Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been clear enough from what I wrote above that I said "Many governments around the world" are governments of, by, and or the people, and that in Cree First Nations "traditionally at least" all adults have a say in their governance. You are recasting my argument in your own words to make it appear as though I stated the Canadian Crown's puppet governments are "of, by and for" the people which I never stated and think the opposite of. I think the least we could do to remain neutral is acknowledge the term "First Nations", which everyone agrees is a "Canadian English" descriptor for the Cree and other tribes, in the category name, and not excise it which would seem to be giving a hand to those who want to see "First Nations" excised and want to impose their Romanesque philosophy of government being a separate body that dictates to helpless people rather than representing them in any way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact I just wrote another "indigenous topics" article yesterday, bringing the total now to 9 out of 29 articles created by me. Where do you get that "I seem busy in ANIs"? You seem very skilled at bringing up irrelevant personal points that don't belong on a CfD discussion. I have taken part in very few ANIs during my 8 years as a wikipedian. But one thing I know from those 8 years experience is, you don't go to a friendly admin and ask him to close a CfD in your favor because nobody else is agreeing with you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat's not all that on my side, and your claim that I asked him to close this CfD is complete horseshit. Talk about a personal attack; geez.......and as for the subject of t his category it is NOT "traditional governance" - it is for band governments. Once again you're muddling the subject matter by not paying attention to the realities of what these governments are. They are not equivalent to the general concept of "First Nations", even though they use that in their (modern) titles; e.g. Seton Lake First Nation, whose reserves I've lived on, also goes by the name "Indian Band" or just "Band", as do many (e.g. the Burns Lake Band has an official name "Tsil keh Koh" or something like that (without "First Nation" in its name); when the term "First Nations" was coined it was to replace the term "Indian" without using the "Native American" designation, or Native Canadian either, and was a POV imposition on the language, as is the use of "nation".....it's a POV term. Which is why, also, the term "indigenous" is now used instead of it.....equating band governments to indigenous/aboriginal peoples is what you're doing, and now you're invoking traditional governance which is not the subject here. BAND GOVERNMENTS ARE. Oh, no doubt you'll complain I'm yelling at you; whereas I can complain that you're being obstructionist, are hostile to the 'hobgoblin of consistency' re other category-names, and never respond to the points I make, rather you hurl personal attacks and go looking for things to criticize me for.........I shudder to think how your "indigenous topics" articles read.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more final points... 1) I couldn't help but notice that Skookum1, in his aforementioned discussions with the admin Bearcat, also admitted there that it was his own initiative in 2008 to change the title of band government to First Nations government (Canada). Since this is so, it is hard to fathom why he objects so strongly to the compromise proposed by Lquilter above, and seconded by myself, that the category being discussed reside at "Category:Cree First Nations governments". The 2008 move seems to imply that he recognizes the contemporary Canadian name for this sort of thing is a "First Nations government", so how can he object to the inclusion of "First Nations" in the category title? 2) I am even more dismayed to see that without waiting for the outcome of this CfD, he yesterday took it upon himself to create the category "Mi'kmaq governments". Seeing a category "Mi'kmaq governments" rankles me even more than the idea proposed here of a category "Cree governments". If consensus here is followed and this category is moved to the compromise title of "Category:Cree First Nations governments", then I am planning to propose a similar move of "Category:Mi'kmaq governments" to "Category:Mi'kmaq First Nations governments" where it should be, but I think it would be decent to await the outcome of this debate first before ploughing on ahead. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm well aware of that and had noticed it recently myself; that was in my early days in Wikipedia and like other articles I wasn't aware of titling issues e.g. Chilliwack (city) which didn't warrant that dab (it's now just Chilliwack, due to my own speedy move request). The "First Nations governments" title change I had made in anticipation that there would be more on traditional governance; but the categories are for band governments, not other kinds of government like the Iroquois Confederacy/haudenosaunee or the Gitxsan-Wet'su-we'ten Confederacy........Grand Council of the Cree is a coalition not a government by the way; tribal councils are dicier and not actual governments but coalitions of bands, so they have their own categories. The name of that article has no bearing on this category's problem, which is that it's about band governments and not "nations", a word you continue to live under delusions as to its meaning; I should have just created Category:Cree governments and moved everything here to that category and deleted this one as a deprecation if I had any idea of the nonsensical hot air that would be thrown at to oppose this......Skookum1 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may be tl;dr, but I can only offer two points for everyone to consider in good faith. First, the Canadian perspective should be controlling here, there appear to be about a gazillion different Cree political and cultural entities (bands/nations/Nations/what-have-you) in Canada. (There's only one in the USA, which I will discuss below, and it's small) Some have formal government recognition as First Nations governments and some may not. So I see the problem with the name "Cree nations" - it's fuzzy and vague - are we talking about the politically-recognized governmental entities or the culturally-acknowledged bands and nations, (Or, as Skookum1 mentioned, some political but not-government-recognized coalitions) regardless of what the Canadian government says? The "people" and the "N/nations" may not be completely parallel. Some First Nations governmental entities may be a single distinct band of Cree people, some may combine multiple bands/Nations into one governmental entity. (Skookum1 would also be the expert on that). So I can only suggest that if the Canadian government has preferred wording for these Native governmental entities, it should be considered here so as to not venture into OR or SYNTH territory. Montanabw(talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My second point to offer t is the USA perspective. Basically, in the United States, the only federally-recognized group of Cree people is the mixed-ancestry Chippewa Cree tribe/nation that is headquartered at the [{Rocky Boy Reservation]] in Montana (see their web site). They would be defined by words like "tribal nation," "Nation" or "tribal government." If we were talking a wholly USA-based nation, we could use categories such as Foo people "Foo nation" or possibly "Foo tribal government" But here we are not. Rocky Boy's and/or the Chippewa-Cree could probably be placed into either the existing or the proposed categories here without too much trouble, though if it were renamed "FIrst Nations governments," then the folks at Rocky Boys would not have a category at all because they aren't a First Nation, they are (to use US Government lingo that everyone hates) a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, or (to use phrasing preferred by some tribes) a "Nation" (or nation). So now that everyone is totally confused, I shall depart without voting at all! Montanabw(talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name seems to agree better with what the articles are actually called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They may seem to, but that's obscuring the reality that capital-N "Nation" is not the same as lowercase-n "nation"....and that "First Nation" and "Nation" do not have the same meaning; "First Nation" has many uses in Canada, and can mean the general adjectival or noun sense formerly given as "Indian" as well as having come to be adopted as a replacement for "Indian Band" (e.g. the Seton Lake Indian Band is also the Seton Lake First Nation). The vagueness of this catname, and its anomalous nature, is the problem with it. About Cree "nations", there is only one great Cree nation", this category is for band governments of the Cree peoples, not any vague sense of "nations". Look at Category:Anishinaabe and {{Anishinaabe}}'s information pages and learn. and NB the Chippewa Cree of Montana are not a First Nation, they are a "federally recognized tribe". And tell me if you find any other "FOO nations" categories, too.Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Like Skookum said, it's vague and fuzzy. And, frankly, a bit OR. "Nation" as used in Canada as "First Nation" has a specific legal meaning. "Big N" Nation has a specific understanding amongst Native cultures (note that's also a "Big N" word, for a reason) I am not sure "governments" is perfect, but I think it's better. Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_4&oldid=1138398469"