Talk:Lax Kwʼalaams

Canada: British Columbia / Geography / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Name/move/split options[edit]

The opening line says it all:

Lax Kw'alaams, usually called Port Simpson.... is the clincher. Wikipedia article name-standards call for the most common usage, NOT the most politically/culturally-correct one, for placename articles. True, there are many articles/situations where side-by-side places have separate articles and names - D'Arcy/Nequatque, Alert Bay/'Yalis, North Vancouver//Xwemelcthsn/Esla7an, Squamish/Sta7mes etc. If that's the case here, and there's a distinction between non-native Port Simpson and the native community that goes by Lax Kw'alaams, then the solution is easy enough: two articles. If it's instead a question of trying to make Lax Kw'alaams the "most common usage, i.e. an effort to supplant the "white name", as has been the case with the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii "name war", then it's a different matter. See WP:Name and the relevant naming of Canadian settlements guidelines. Wikipedia is not supposed to impose name-change campaigns, but to reflect existing reality; its job is not to make reality, but serve as a mirror to it. The further complication here is that Fort Simpson (Columbia Department), which is the HBC precursor to Port Simpson, has a history of its own and is barely represented here; what is here instead is an ethnographic article on the clans and social structure of the Tsimshian groups that settled/were relocated here. Note also my removal of the regional district category, pretty much for that reason; a Port Simpson, British Columbia article, on the other hand, could have a regional district category if it's also a member community of the Regional District and not a reserve only (reserves are not governed by, and do not vote within, regional districts). What I think is best here is to split Lax Kw'alaams off as a Category:Tsimshian settlements article, and to create that category, and to make the Port Simpson redirect its own article, as there's a cannery history here, and non-native history, independent of the indigenous content, though interlinked with it of course; and it can be in the RD cat. The HBC fort, which also formerly was near the mouth of the Nass, is going to be a fairly in-depth article of its own, once written, so 'three articles may result. the title of this has bothered me for a while; Kamloops is not titled T'Kumlups, Sooke is not titled T'zouke...other situations like this are around - Bella Bella/Waglisla comes to midn. But if this is to remain one article, it not only needs its fare share of non-indigenous content/history, not jsut a native focus, and it should have t he most common and official name for its title, not the "indigenously-correct" one. I'd wager that if you asked a Port Simpson resident where they lived, they'd also say Port Simpson, and not Lax Kw'alaams.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See BCGNIS external link. The name of the town has been officially changed to Lax Kw'alaams. Looks like calling it Port Simpson now is like calling Mumbai Bombay. Common yes, official no. --KenWalker | Talk 08:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plfy solved this a while ago by creating Fort Simpson (Columbia Department), at least as far as needing to embrace that name given its historical profile goes.....the article here, though, needs to be about something more than the clan-history; i.e. just because it has a native name now doesn't mean it doesn't still ahve a "white history". A lot of the clan/tribe information should go to respective pages on the Six (Seven?) Tribes....more later, I just got up and my coffee just finished brewing....Skookum1 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lax Kw'alaams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814085858/http://survivingcanada.resist.ca/image/tid/8 to http://survivingcanada.resist.ca/image/tid/8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]