Talk:Wetʼsuwetʼen

Wet'suwet'en/Babine
The Witsuwit'en are NOT considered part of a group called Babine. Rather, they and the Babine are sisters, for whom the only name currently considered acceptable is Babine-Witsuwit'en. Witsuwit'en people consider the idea that they are Babine offensive, and similarly Babine people do not consider themselves Witsuwit'en. It is therefore inaccurate to include Babine Lake and Takla Lake in Witsuwit'en territory as these are Babine. Bill 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to sort out the various Dakelh peoples/bands as you'll see on the table of bands on Dakelh; I'm going to add villages and reserves to the table, and populations etc. I understand the "linguistic sisterhood" of these two groups, but I'm not in a position to say which one speaks Witsuwit'en and which speak Babine so have placed the double-barreled language-name in the respective places; you're welcome to change them, and also change the categories suitably on any of the band pages or any ethno or village pages that might exist; note that in Wiki guidelines a distinction is made between government articles and community articles and/or ethno articles, which is why I broke off the Moricetown Indian Band govt article from Moricetown, British Columbia; the actual reserves in any location are (theoretically) different articles, and sure enough some bands have several reserves they're in charge of/assigned to.  Don't forget WP:Be Bold and given your expertise in this region you're more than welcome to "take charge" (but not Ownership.  I'm also deliberating on how to treat the non-tribal council nature of the organization of the Hereditary Chiefs vs the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, a distinction made by the Wet'suwet'en hojmepagei.e. they probably both need articles, but what the "status" of them is has to be explained; "functions like a tribal council, but is not a tribal council" is a paraphrase of what http://www.wetsuweten.com has to say about it.  And in that particular case is it more approrpriate to have Office of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en and its Gitxsan counterpart, or would it be better to make Office of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en?  I'd thought the phrase Gixsan-Wet'suwet'en Confederacy, which was current during the Delgamuuks deliberations, at least in the media, but it doesn't "google up" well and I find no web citations for it.  Please note I recently made Hagwilget, British Columbia, just as a stub, and like any of these articles it could use dressing up/content-enrichment.  Similarly the web of bands and langauges across northern BC isn't well-organized yet and a lot of band/ethno stubs need to be made, the language articles/stubs all seem to be in place; it's a complicated map, BC First Nations, as you know; the effort here is meant to be collective and consensual, and if somebody with more expertise, and even better yet, citations, then please fire away; make it what it has to be.  Thanks for weighing in on the Tyee article about the Sinixt, by the way.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to Moricetown Indian Band, that article is currently placed in Category:Dakelh governments - would it more suitable to have a Category:Wet'suwet'en governments (or should it be "Witsuwit'in"?; let me know if so and I'll create it, similarly Category:Babine governments if that's suitable; I gather if those are suitable they shouldn't be subcats of "Dakelh governments" but only of Category:Dakelh?Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation
There is a "citation needed" sticker on the claim that they are in treaty negotiations. I don't know how to add it, but here is some proof, for someone who can add it: http://www.bctreaty.net/files/first_nations.php  Rob MacDonald 207.81.154.105 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to that; I also found a citable bit of content just now on http://www.wetsuweten.com.Skookum1 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Land claim status?
Have the Wet'suwet'en completed a land-claim process with the federal and provincial governments? If not, I have a little more sympathy for their blockades. But if the process has been completed and both sides have fulfilled their obligations (monetary payments, etc.), and if that process includes specifications as to the hereditary chiefs' scope of power and the land they hold that power over, then the pipeline must respect the land held in that power.

I am not posting this as an opinion quite as much as I am asking for something in the article that tells readers if there is a settled land claim and whether it provides the legal framework to allow or disallow the protest that is blocking the pipeline and instigating sympathy blockades elsewhere. GBC (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They are in "stage 4" of the 6 stages of the BC Treaty Commission's six stage process. Like many FNs they've been stalled out at that point for a long time (since about 1995 it seems). In 2014 the Tsilhqot'in won a landmark case regarding aboriginal title via the Canadian Supreme Court, see Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia. As I understand, this case has essentially put all BC-managed treaty processes on hold or at least major reevaluation. Their status under the BC process is here. Various relevant documents there. The traditional territory that they have claimed in the treaty process is here (although at "stage 4" everything is "preliminary"--the final process can be really complex; whole books were written about territorial claims in the Nisga'a case).


 * In short, their land claim process has not been completed. But then, BC's treaty process has only been completed by a few First Nations (Haida, Nisga'a...), and the process is one that takes many decades in the best circumstances, with the majority being stalled, especially since the 2014 Tsilhqot'in case. It is good that BC finally made a process and has actually finalized a few treaties, but in the bigger picture, and especially in the last decade, the process is quite a mess. Pfly (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. That is helpful. So, if we view it from a de jure standing, the Wet'su'weten have not yielded the territory, and it can be viewed as trespass since the hereditary chiefs' jurisdiction has not been codified. The BC and Fed gov'ts need to get with it here and move this to a resolution. The govts should therefore compensate the pipeline people for a reroute that the Wet'su'weten have suggested they would accept. I think it is taking ridiculously long to settle this - it only took the US government three years to settle the Alaska land claims, and we're on 50 years?! GBC (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Article title
I started working on standardizing the spelling of Wetʼsuwetʼen in several articles but I don't really know what I'm doing here, and I see that (for example) the title of this article is spelled Wetʼsuwetʼen (with ) while the article's category is spelled Wet'suwet'en (with ). In other instances some editors have wrapped the name with nowiki tags and I can't tell why. Which is correct? (Or, because it's Wikipedia, which is a reasonable standard?) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Pipeline needs a mention
A controversy that shuts down most rail traffic in Canada is certainly notable. Or is there a separate article about this? I hesitate to begin this myself as I am not aware of the full situation, and my hands are full elsewhere. Nonetheless. If anyone is following this page and cananswer the above question, that would be a start 162.216.188.155 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * our article Coastal GasLink Pipeline is mostly about the controversy and protests, since the pipeline is mostly non-notable otherwise. Your contributions would be welcome there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)