Talk:Squamish, British Columbia/Archive 1

Relgion
I have started a new section on religion, and think subsections for the various faiths might not be a bad idea to include. Some basic information for some (if not all) of the churches can be found here. In the mean time, I have restored some of the information in a seciton titled "religion" --TeaDrinker 02:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant to include demographic information and the like, but an exhaustive list of places of worship is both out of place and will always exclude or diminish some group. IMO a list of churches represented in a place is really not useful information (to the general public), and in this case it seems to be Christian advertising (for lack of a better word). As it stands now, the article doesn't offer equal representation, why are only Christian churches represented? And even if there were to be an exhaustive list of places of worship in Squamish, I don't think it's at all encyclopedic and doesn't belong here. If you want to include information on the demographics of the town, StatsCan has some good demographic information that would be worth including .--Ktims 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot see why we would include every place of worship in a town of 14000. At that rate, we need to include every place of worship on the planet in order to offer a fair and balanced NPOV. I'd leave them out. --Habap 04:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you can not spell frikin fool with YOU habap. The NPOV is a load of BC. And in this town there are few chures and one too many temples. I did not include all names cause I could not remember them all. Why did some one get rid of the names of em preachers? May God have mercy on your sould (and em shiks tooP


 * I am not terribly fixed on having the list of churches. I wanted to include information about the various other religions, since the Sikh community section seemed out of place, but I had little context.  I am not at all opposed to replacing it with more encyclopedic content.  --TeaDrinker 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You really did not put in the list of churches you just kept it.

Well,

It is good to have Christ here, and there would be no reason for sikhisme to be here without Christ.

-ED
 * With regard to all the NPOV issues, I think it's best if we just remove the section entirely for now, unless someone wants to rewrite it with relevant information like statistics. As it stands, I'm not at all comfortable with it. There is no reason for a list of churches of any denomination in a Wikipedia article. While the original (with only the Sikh reference) was mildly against NPOV policy, the current revision is even further off the mark. The anonymous user making all of these edits is clearly motivated by his bias towards Christianity, and while that user does have a point, their edits are clearly biased. I'm removing everything but the opening blurb for now. Please keep the article relevant and on topic.--Ktims 06:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the most sensible approach. --Habap 17:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It'll pass - ED

Sources needed
The articles on both former mayors need sources, as does this article. I can't believe so much bandwidth (and so much anger) is being expended on a town of 14000 people. --Habap 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need sources for easily verifyable information (like the mayors). That information should be a matter of public record.  But it could be fact-checked, and if there is an authoritative source, by all means add it.  As to the anger: From the discussion above, one can see that it is mostly from one individual&mdash;an anonymous editor with a strong POV. Sunray 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That the information can be easily verified means that we should include links on the pages to allow the user to verify it or find more information. This is especially true of the two mayoral pages (though it is hard to say whether someone's only claim to fame is being a mayor of a small town makes them notable). --Habap 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Camp Summit
I have removed the camp sumit link as it has no relevance.

-ED


 * Not sure why our anonymous editor placed a note on my page that including Camp Summit violated WP:NPOV. I am guessing it is because not everyone in the photos is white and he finds that offensive. It looks like an interesting little place and perhaps part of why such a small town might be notable. --Habap 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right not every one is white and that is extremely offensive. Read the wiki npov, that is also why it is bad. Why do you think it should be included because "It looks like an interesting little place and perhaps part of why such a small town might be notable."Is not a good enough. I drive by "camp" summit every work day it is nothing but hipi negro tents.

-ED


 * So your objection is that it allows people of other races to associate together? Or is it that in combination with liberal politics that you find offensive. --Habap 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the liberal part of it that really disgusts me.

-ED


 * It's truly a shame that you are offended by those whose politics don't match yours. --Habap 20:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at least he is not a Liberal Fool! Always remember Right is Right and Left is Lies!


 * I thought all politicians lied. The old saw is "How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." --Habap 13:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That only applies to liberals!


 * If you think only liberals lie, you are even more naive than the hippies you despise. --Habap 13:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

207.81.122.3 19:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 's true!

Mosque
There was mention of a mosque in Squamish, recently added. User:Wikipedia Indian Name Control removed it, however that removal was lost in the ongoing back and forth of first nation terminology. I have gone ahead and removed it again, since I could find no evidence of it online. There does seem to be a Sikh temple. I will leave a note on the talk page of User:128.189.128.35, a seemingly stable IP who added the info. In the interim, I have removed the mention of it. Thoughts or clarifications? --TeaDrinker 05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That right tea drinka it is about time ya stoped drinkin that magic tea. I live in this town and I know there aint no freekin mosque, we unfortunatly do have one to many temples and one to many morman halls 207.81.122.3 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But no literacy programme, or at least not one that 207.81.122.3 has bothered to avail himself of, anyway. And yes, there is a Sikh temple in Squamish.Skookum1 23:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Test of Metal
I has been suggested that the page Test of Metal, a race which takes place in Squamish, be merged into this article. My inclination is to oppose this merge. The race page is reasonably extensive, but were it in the Squamish page, I could only imagine a few lines at most about it. I don't see a problem with a seperate article for the race. --TeaDrinker 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I heartily agree with TeaDrinker here; I don't think a merge is warranted. Test of Metal is an event; Squamish is a place. If anything, Test of Metal could be listed under a "See also" section; the merge notice seems innappropriate. jmv 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A month has passed since the merger was proposed. I am going to assume there is nothing futher to add and remove the notes.  --TeaDrinker 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Squamolian?
Find me somebody that has lived here and calls themselves (or others) a "Squamolian." Magonigle 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Magonigle

Indian v. First nation
I have reverted the word Indian back to First Nations as it is the prefered term for indigenous inhabitants of Canada. Moreover, since the First nation article is extensive and more specific than the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article where the "indian" link goes, I think it is more appropriate. Thoughts? --Hansnesse 01:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good by me. Sunray 07:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indian is better because it is true first nations is a lie! Eve they [india s] preferes to be called indians! -Q Romenov


 * Can you give more information about this, in particular (i) Why is "First Nation" a lie, (ii) Why is the use of the word indians "true," and (iii) what evidence can you point to as to preference? It seems to me that the term "First Nation" fairly accurately discribes the indigenous people of the Americas, since they were the first people to create communities with governance in the region.  Moreover, it is a generally accepted term for the indigenous inhabitants of Canada.  It should be noted, however, that the Suquamish Tribe is based in the US, so the term "Native American" might be prefered.  I think -the term "Indian" is wildly inaccurate, since the people are not really from India.  Perhaps we can reach consensus here before editing the term further.--Hansnesse 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey I agree w/ya QR!!

I agree with Q, the Indians get too many benifits in this contry why should we give them one more. We are the Nation of Canada with Canadians not First Nations we are all Canadians equally. They are nothing but an ethnic group just like all the other who imagrated. They just came earlier! We taught them alot they should be thanking Canada and the people who came and helped them not expecting all the benifits. We won the war Anywho. HD 123321 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the place to take up the debate whether the common term used should be "indian" or "first nation" (or something else). If the commonly used (in academic, legal, etc. writing) is "first nation," as well as being the term the people themselves prefer, it seems to me to use something else would be NPOV.  Also, I don't think vandalizing the page  is a good way to make your point.  --Hansnesse 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is called editing for the correctness you loser tard freak. HD 123321 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming to the talk page and adding your input. If your opinion is that all indigenous inhabitants of North America should be called "indians," I suggest the place to discuss it is not here but at Talk:Native American name controversy. --06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Natives are like crooks they try and steal as much as they can except what they do is "right". I am just as First Nation as the injuns This is the FIRST NATION I was born into they deserve nothing, only the things they deserve are the ones of the rest of citizens. They are noting speacial. 'THEY ARE INDIANS'' NOTING MORE ''' Untill they give up there evil money stealing ways. HD 123321 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion, but this is not the place to try to make social changes, politically or racially based accusations, nor should any article use derogatory language. If you think the name change is consistent with Wikipedia policy and style, say why.  If you don't think that it is, then discuss the change of policy or style (in the appropriate places) or lump it and let it stay as is.  --Hansnesse 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at any map it states it as INDIAN reserve. There is a reason it is called Ministry of INDIAN affiars! 24.82.136.103 06:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who changed it back to just first nations cleary having both names is a comprimise. The reasons I have givin clearly state why both should be kept. Do not get rid of them w/o reason. 24.82.136.103 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the above comments give ample reason to keep it out. If the term is used primarily by those who want to denigrate the subject, then it has no place in Wikipedia.  I do not think interjecting personal views is appropriate here (see WP:NPOV), and that seems to be the motivation behind the change.  I don't think it makes the article clearer.  Thanks for the comments, --Hansnesse 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a stupid idiot Hansnesse get out of this page go talk with your last nations friends. What I put makes perfect sence look on a map it will say INDAIN RESERVE not first naitons res. There is a ministry of INDIAN AFFAIRS not first nations affair. Why the Hell can you not accept the voice of reason or comprimise get a life Hensnesse you stupid Silly FREAk


 * Incivility will get you nowhere. The purpose behind the change seems to be (given the above discussion) seems to be looking for a way to slight the indigenous inhabitants of the region.  That can not stand per WP:NPOV.  I do not read a discussion above about how the change from "First Nation" to "Indian" would improve article clarity; it seems to be centered around trying to find a way for (now banned) user HD 123321 to insert insults into the article.  I would request that you discuss the matter here before reverting the article again.  Thanks, --Hansnesse 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The wiki NPOV is full of BS, clearing shove it up yours henasees or whatever you name is. Clear HD 123321 makes sence same with the person who is talking about the indian reserve. 207.81.122.3 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you disagree with the policy, but it is the policy. In fact, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.  I have not reverted the page since I would like consensus to emerge here.  But all that has been posted against using "first nations" instead of "indians" is vitrolic attacks on the indigenous people, and attacks on policy.  Why does using the term "indian" make the article better? --Hansnesse 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I may disagree with the policy but the statements I have put do not violate it. It is better becuase it is more accurate, and diverse and more official. There is absolutly nothing wrong with having both you should realize you are wrong hansnesse.207.81.122.3 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, an open discussion here on the talk page is appropriate. However, my concern with the use of the term "indian" rather than "first nation" is that it violates WP:NPOV.  Perhaps by addressing this concern, we can have a more productive conversation.  It seems to me that if the reason for the change is purely to malign a group of people, it violates WP:NPOV.  What do you think?  --Hansnesse 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it violaties it how? How about you tell the government and the mapmacker that they should use the term first nation, because it violates something on wikipedia. It is not a violation to use a different term. As I have said if the government uses it why is it wrong. I think you are violating the WP:NPOV.207.81.122.3 23:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term "Indian" can be neutral in some contexts, however it can be used as a racial insult in others. Seeing what was posted by the now-banned HD 123321, and your statement of agreement with him, it seems abundantly clear that the intent is the latter.  A racial insult, just to be clear, is not neutral point of view.  Let me ask you, how does it make the article clearer or more encyclopedic to use the word "indian?"  --Hansnesse 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

INSULTS!!!What are you talking about, it is just a term or as some people would put the corret term. Any who it makes it more clear because for rednecks it is easier for them to understand, and it is just another appropriate term. Here is Indian Defined in the dictionary: In·di·an (nd-n) adj. Of or relating to India or the East Indies or to their peoples, languages, or cultures. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples title except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits. See you are wrong. Puting in a message is not vandelism by the way.207.81.122.3 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any intent to be insulting here. There is an article on this dispute at Native American name controversy; it is not as simple as a dictionary definition.  I think "First Nation" is the appropriate term, since it is well known and generally agreed on as neutral.  I do not think it is necessary to specify "(Indian Reserve)" in the heading, since there is a link to the main article on the Squamish people.  --TeaDrinker 23:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Teadrinka: is there booze in your tea is it "magic" tea?

You are partially right. There is no intent to be insulting. I think both names are important. It is an Indian Reserve in the eyes of the government. Look on of government map it call them Indian Reserves. There is a reaon the government calls it Indian Affairs 207.81.122.3 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is: The Squamish Nation is not one reserve. There are a total of sixteen reserves in the Squamish Nation, including not only the reserves around Squamish, but others in North Vancouver, Gibsons, Seymour, Mission and so on.  We have to be factual in an encyclopedia.  We are simply saying that the Squamish people have their traditional territory in and around Squamish.  Sunray 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok then I will change the working to band. Them injuns deserve to be called what they are.


 * The people call themselves the "Squamish Nation."  The convention is, generally, to refer to people as they refer to themselves.  There has been plenty of discussion about this.  You have your point of view and the consensus of other editors who edit this article is to use Squamish Nation.  Case closed.  Sunray 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OMW (o my word) which is INDIAN because it is the corect term. It is not closed cause you say so Sunray (Personal attack removed) that load of bs aka the wiki npov (in which you are violating). Indian is the correct term talk to the minister Jim Prentic (Conservative). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.122.3 (talk • contribs).


 * I have gotten ride of the Squamish Nation Section as it has little relevance to this page as they have their own page. I do not see a section for white people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.122.3 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, actually this whole page is for white people and there should be a separate Squamish Nation article for the band government. Not that that would satisfy your prejudices about this, of course.Skookum1 00:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is such a page: Squamish First Nation. Sunray 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave em injuns back there names. Indian Name Control 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

S2s ranger 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) As a person whom lives in the sea-to-sky area, and a member of the Squamish Nation, I prefer the term INDIAN, (i.e. Indian Affairs.) So now you have heard it from and Indian!

Squamish Nation 23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Well as the new Squamish Nation rep. for Wikipedia, consesus tells me that Indian is the better term to use. I also support this term. Most Indians in town call even ourselves Indians and so does the BC Government, Fed. Government and maps. So if we call ourselves Indians so should this article as it is not really even relevent.


 * Inventiveness in naming your sock puppets doesn't make them people or members of the Squamish Nation, let alone authorize them to decide on what is done on Wikipedia. --Habap 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sock puppets are ignored in determining consensus. If he was a member of the Squamish Nation, he would be aware that "Squamish Nation" is the term prefered by the people. Sunray 20:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting really ridiculous. What's the next step? I don't think reverting this page 5 times a day is a real solution. --Ktims 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are always ridiculous. The next step for you is to not edit on Squamish's page. If you do not like the page being changed 5 x/day you do not do so it will be less. And as for you Sunray sock pupet of Ktims, Habap, Teadrinka and Hansnesse. YOU should be aware that the injun band does not matter, what they say is crap, I do not care what they say cause they do not pay taxes. The Government often uses the right term INDIAN. Wikipedia Indian Name Control 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a policy in place here at Wikipedia for dealing with disputes over the content of articles. You're quite clearly ignoring it, and that means that you're the one making unreasonable edits and reversions. It is rather obvious that consensus has been reached here, aside from yourself. The correct action would be to defer to the community at large against which you are arguing. In fact, during the 'dispute resolution' phase you shouldn't be making any controversial edits to the page at all. Also note that making the same reversion more than 3 times is banworthy. Due to your lack of cooperation with the community and your lack of adherence to the policies that make Wikipedia work, I believe it's time to escalate this issue such that the community doesn't have to revert your vandalism many times daily. You do realise that this is an article about a town with 10,000 people, correct? Why are you so interested in spreading your bigotry and ignorance here, rather than on some more consequential page? Is it not clear to you that your edits will never be accepted? Finally, if you wish to be taken seriously, you should work on your grasp of professional written English (Wikipedia portrays itself as a professional organization after all) and refrain from the personal attacks. You've had far more than enough warnings about this issue. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I am quite sure there is a procedure in place to have an edit ban put in place on your accounts, and if nobody else picks up the responsibility I will research it and start the ball rolling myself. One way or another the vandalism will be stopped. I'd rather it happen without resorting to revoking your privileges. --Ktims 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). Get out of here I am not ignoringany thing. If it was a problem why are people changing it, if it is so disputful why is it not left at a comprimise (for now) with both. (Personal attack removed). I can tell you are no expert in wiki pocilys. I do not need a wwwwwarning casue I aint doing notin wrong. It aint vandleism it a gernous comprimise you fool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedia Indian Name Control (talk • contribs).

Could we switch it from "Squamish Nation" to "Indigenous peoples", both pertaining to the political Indian Act government (Squamish Nation) and the actualy people (Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw), and take a more NPOV. If it is indian or First Nations, Indigenous is a cultural social term to apply to the native people of the town (and Howe Sound, Burrard Inlet peoples too). Then we put the links to Squamish Nation talking about the political (band council, indian act) organization, along with the people. Adding history of the first contact between the Indigenous peoples and first Europeans in this land, along with some added Indigenous history pertaining to the town of Squamish

And could we leave the racist, ignorant, deogratory, condecending, and prejudice comments for somewhere else. Thanks. OldManRivers 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to older version
An anonymous editor (IP 207.81.122.144) has been deleting the article in favour of an much older version, without any explanation or comment. After restoring the current version a few times, I received a message from this anon, the gist of which was "leave Squamish to its citizens you jacka**". (The anon's deletion also seems to involve placing the "Religion" section - renamed to "Squamish Christian Community" - near the top of the article.) FYI. --Ckatz chat spy  17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Main photo
i changed the main photo of the town from one that shows cleveland avenue to another that shows squamish from summit #2 of the stawamus chief. the original uploader of the first photo reverted the change and suggested i propose the photo here for voting. i don't really know how people vote though... --Alllexxxis (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing your question here and for the new photo. I was the one who reverted your change. Though I am not the person who put the photo of Cleveland Avenue in the article, it has been there for some time. Usually a major change gets talked about on the discussion page. As I said in my edit summary, I favour the picture that is there now. The one you put up is a little dark in thumb nail size, although when you look at the full size, it is an interesting picture. So let's see if anyone else comments. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Garibaldi Highlands et al. and re Category:Squamish, British Columbia
Noting that there's a Brackendale, British Columbia article and also some for Sta7mes (Stawamus Reserve's "proper name") and Cheekeye (though not under that spelling), I'm thinking there should be Garibaldi Highlands and, if there's enough entries in the District of Squamish there should be a Category:Squamish, British Columbia which doesn't need (at this poitn) to have a "Neighbourhoods of Squamish" subcat but Kamloops already does, for instance....I can't see Valleycliffe warranting one, or various other areas, but Garibaldi Highlands - "the Highlands" - is notable for the country club, Quest, the tony neighbourhood on the bluff area (what's that hill called again?) and various services; It also I believe had an existence before being absorbed into Squamish, like Brackendale. Anyway such a category could be expanded from a strict District-boundaries definition to include Darrell Bay, even Woodfibre, Paradise Valley, and up the Squamish River to the powerhouse etc; the Skwxwu7mesh category is a natural subcat but the inhabited ones should be in as neighbourhoods, if not of the District hten of the area. This relates to other "metropolitan" district categories that I know are out there so I'll go look and see who's got what; Squamish just struck me tonight while doing a Brackendale edit....Skookum1 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it SquAYmish or SquAMMish? People outside BC don't necessarily know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.153 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, we take it for granted; the vowel is the same as in squamous cells - the very politically-incorrect SquAWmish, though there is no connection to the word squaw, which is from amother language entirely (though invariably the cause of various off-colour jokes over the years). I "don't do IPA" but will find someone who does to put in the proper phonetical hieroglyphics.  Often "fondly" referred to as Squish, or Squeamish, also...actually I've never heard anybody try either of your two possible pronunciations, the second one in particular seems very odd to hear......and in general if it were pronounced that way, the 'm' would have been '-mm-' in the transliteration (from Skwxwu7mesh).Skookum1 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Squamish Airport
There's an article on Squamish Airport but no link to it here. Get back to basics people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.209.113 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Levette Lake
Hello, I was wondering about Levette Lake in Squamish, of which I've only seen photos. Is it far off the road? And do any experts here know for whom it's named? Many thanks in advance.MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I know which one you're talking about; the road access is from Paradise Valley (lower Cheakamus River, turn right over the bridge at Cheekye) and is or was very rough. It's on the plateau in the angle of the Squamish and Cheakamus Rivers and is really nice....has basalt platforms out beneath the surface, the top of lava crystals, you can stand up knee and waist deep out in the middle; it's spring-fed and not glacial so nice swimming.  Not notable enough for an article though I did redlink it, I'll look at BC Names and see if there's a name origin there.....Levette was a local logger, I think.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there's no name information yet in BC Names, but here's their listing, with map.Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Squamish which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)