Talk:Salish Sea/Archive 2

Good source: CBC Radio documentary

Last night there was a documentary on CBC Radio's The Current all about the name-change controversy. Would be a good source for this article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

US BGN approval

Well that came a lot faster than I was expecting. Seems likely to become fully official, unless the federal Canada board jumps ship. The US BGN hasn't released its latest info about this yet, but I looked at their October review list, Quarterly Review List 402, October 26, 2009, and was amused to see Wikipedia listed as one of the "published" sources that are using the term Salish Sea. They list quite a few "local usage" and "published" usages and it looks like they were already doing some good research before it came up for an official vote, so that's good. Listing Wikipedia as a published source using the term is... ironic? Funny? Pfly (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about, somewhere, about Wikipedia being used as a platform to disseminate renaming campaigns and its impact on other sources/authorities. Dollars to donuts the version of the Wikipedia article presented to the US BGN was an older version, talking about the name as if it were widely-accepted and already in use....that there was no time to present opposing views to the US BGN, including critiquing the use of rigged Wikipedia articles, is unfortunate and unfair. Webber lobbied academics and organizations around Puget Sound, whose adoption of his term in their writings has also been used as "evidence".....no fixing this now, I guess, but it points to the dangers of allowing soapbox-style articles to stand unchallenged; in the same way that Cascadia enthusiasts have tried to supplant "Pacific Northwest" and the way "Whulge" was an attempted rename of the Puget Sound article at one point (whulge only means "saltwater", which leads back to my point about saltchuck being an actual name in wide use, if not as a proper name, for these waters). This whole affair has been quite despicable, its outcome deplorable......Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

1. This recent change suggested that having an unreferenced section in Wikipedia is acceptable. The information in this section is not common knowledge, and references should be provided, so the section meets WP:V. If the information is in references at other pages, then those references should be used here.
2. This change added references to the lead. The lead is not the proper place for references. The lead should summarize the article, and the references should be contained in the article.
3. This change added an inline comment that the information is copied from other pages, but that it is unreferenced at the other pages as well. Again, this still fails WP:V. DigitalC (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LEADCITE it is acceptable to have references in the lead. In particular it says, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Feel free to break stuff out into sections if you'd like. I'll find references for the other two points. Pfly (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a source for point #3 (about the Chemakum). Perhaps that passage could be better written--I'm not keen on the phrase "wiped out" for one, even if it is essentially accurate; also the historical details are a bit more complex--the Suguamish were not the only ones attacking the Chemakum, although they apparently dealt the final blow--and not every last Chemakum was killed: some apparently fled and joined the Twana. But..well at least there is a reference now. My comments on point #2 are above. Point #1 was more complicated, as it involves a much longer passage with a number of claims. So I added about 8 references. Perhaps this is overkill, but each one addressed slightly different points. And on the claim that "Salish" first applied only to the Flathead people, which might not be well known, I figured two references might be a good idea--one older, from 1910, the other from the OED. I didn't add references for "The name Salish Sea was coined only in the late 20th century", as this is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Nor for "There is no overarching title for this area or even a commonly shared name for any of the waterbodies in any of the Coast Salish languages", because this doesn't seem like an unusual or controversial claim. It is the norm for Indian/indigenous languages to lack native terms for very large geographic features, and even more normal for multiple languages to use different terms. It would be very odd if the various Coast Salish languages did have a traditional word for the whole "Salish Sea"--in any one language let alone all of them! But if a reference is really required stick a tag on there and maybe someone will find time to dig something up. Also, I didn't add references to the second paragraph about terms like Georgia-Puget Basin, Puget-Georgia Basin, Georgia Depression, Gulf of Georgia, etc. It's late and I'm out of time and energy. These terms and variants upon them are common and should be easy to reference is there is a need. Just google them and one should quickly find lots of reliable sources. Pfly (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to find "negative cites", although the "no common name in the Coast Salish languages" statement is pointedly very true and may be in some of the linked articles/blogs already in the article. Certainly User:OldManRivers, who is Skwxwu7mesh and is a student of his own language, is unaware of any such term in any CS language....there was an attempt here in Wikipedia to launch a rename of Puget Sound (and Georgia Strait) as "Whulge", from Lushootseed, as if it were valid for all languages in the region, and/or as if Lushootseed were the regoinal language (which it's not) - it was never a name, it only means "saltwater" - which brings me back to "saltchuck', which was common to all peoples of the region (including non-natives...). The Whulge campaign never got to BGN poobahs, but it smacked of the same re-branding / soapbox campaign that this did (likewise Cascadeia and certain other terms where Wikipedia is being used to "push" them and legitimize them....).Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

coords need relocating

I just happened to look at them; they're north of Dungeness WA in American waters, SE of Victoria; this midpoint between Olympia and Desolation Sound is considerably north of that, by my estimation somewhere around the north end of Boundary Pass; I know that doesn't factor in the westward Strait of Juan de Fuca; maybe the south end of Haro Strait would be more suitable? Or one of the San Juans? NB since teh designation as passed "with all adjoining waters etc" includes Jervis Inlet (theoretically including Bute Inlet, but it's not yet stated that the SS includes the waters of the Discovery Islands....point is including those inlets makes the midpoint even farther north....and there is no official coordinates from either country yet (hopefully they'll match....)Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it too and wondering whether it might be better placed elsewhere. After some thought (five whole seconds worth!) I decided it was okay where it was--in that broad basin-shaped bulged at the east of the the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I'm certainly not for or against a change, but I thought the current point was decently placed near the junction of the three main waterbodies joined under this new term. The Strait of Georgia being north of the San Juans makes it less than ideal, so, perhaps it could be up there instead. The way the three main bodies are joined and separated by archipelagos makes it non-obvious where to place a single point. There is also the question of where exactly the northern bound of the Strait of Georgia lies. Does it include Deception Sound? Sutil Passage? More? I hope the Canadian BGN provides a clear definition (but am not counting on it). The USGS GNIS page does not provide a single coordinate point, but rather 105 points, count them! Anyway, I agree that a point near the southern end of the Strait of Georgia would probably be more centered geographically, the current point in the eastern bulge of the Strait of Juan de Fuca seems slightly more cartographically balanced. Perhaps a shift north onto the international border? Anyway, no biggie, I'm okay with whatever. I might even attempt a map showing the "borders" and various sub-waterbodies. But first it would be nice to get a good definition of the northern bounds of the Str. of Georgia. Btw, this "all adjoining waters" phrase--does that mean Saltspring Island is in the Salish Sea? ;-) Pfly (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just went ahead and made a slight tweak, fwiw. Pfly (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A book about the Gulf Islands called "Islands in the Salish Sea" is actually the first place I ever heard of this term.99.199.144.67 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the underlying Reason was Missed

While it is fine to debate the merits of Saltchuck vs Salish Sea, I think the discussion and the article itself miss the point -- which if I recall correctly was discussed in a Seattle Times article.

The point is that all of the place names around here are the names of conquerors and exploiters. Mostly the names are Spanish and English. Changing the name was an attempt to acknowledge the rightful heritage of the people who were already here. IMHO I think it is a major step forward.

While I would tend to agree that "Saltchuck" is possibly the more technically correct name; to the western ear "Salish Sea" is far more poetic and thus had a much greater chance of successful adoption. Also from my understanding, Saltchuck is perhaps too generic (it literally means salt water - including the ocean). (nika kumtux Chinook Wawa). Manyshoes (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true that lots of places are named after the invaders, or "new-comers" as I've heard them referred to. Then again, Seattle is, as far as I know, the only major city named for an indigenous person anywhere in the US (and Canada I think). The next largest city example I can think of is the much smaller Pocatello, Idaho. Indigenous names abound for natural features, like rivers, even US counties (I live in Snohomish County)--but not waterbodies so much. I think the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) editor OldManRivers has argued (perhaps on his blog, which sadly seems to be down), that the new place name "Salish Sea" is basically an empty gesture which mainly serves to make the new-comers feel better but does little or nothing to actually help indigenous peoples. Personally I'm not sure what I think about the topic, but if nothing else like having a single term for what formerly required three different, and long terms. It is one big, interconnected inland sea, so having a single name is useful--whether or not I buy the arguments about the name's ecological and sociological benefits. As others have pointed out, Victoria's wastewater will still flow and the First Nations are still not "liberated" (as OMR puts it). In any case, Saltchuck is not on the table. Nor is Gran Canal de Nuestra Señora del Rosario la Marinera! Personally, I found the political and logical arguments in favor of the name "Salish Sea" rather dubious, but now that the debates are over I'm fine with the name and glad there is one for whole inland sea. Time will tell whether it becomes more widely used or remains rare. (also, I plead guilty to having made this talk page into sometimes more like a chat forum and not exactly useful for working on the article--now that the name is official and all, I'll try to stay better focused!) Pfly (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)