Talk:Haida Gwaii/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead section POV

The lead section of this article reads to me as if it takes the point of view of the Haida Nation against the governments of Canada and the United States. There is a perceptible sense that the US and Canada are alien forces who somehow oppress Haida Gwaii without providing any benefits – as if the right thing to do would be for both Canada and the US to cede sovereignty over all the territory the Haida Nation claims to that nation and end all involvement in its affairs. In fact, the following passage is not particularly subtle in making that point:

... the U.S. state of Alaska is to the north, across a marine border Dixon Entrance disputed by two Nation state claimants, Canada and the USA. Haida territories, continuously occupied before Canada or USA claims, include lands and waters on both side of this political disagreement. There is no evidence of a free informed prior legal transfer of competence over these territories from the Indigenous Peoples to either Nation state.

A more balanced article would tell about what benefits the people of these islands receive in return for submission to these two foreign powers. If they receive no benefits, and if the only result of being part of Canada and the US is oppression, then that point should be made more clearly and with reliable sources to support it.

I personally have no stake or even great interest in this specific issue, and my feelings about it are not strong enough to move me to mark the article with any sort of POV tag; but I do feel that I should express how the article reads to me for the possible benefit of editors who are involved in maintaining it.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. As it turns out, the changes were undiscussed, and were made by an IP on July 31, 2011. I have removed them per your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Formerly" vs. "More Commonly"

This edit re-replaces the phrase "formerly the Queen Charlotte Islands," with "more commonly the Queen Charlotte Islands," in the lede sentence. That QCI remains a common name is not disputed, but the available sources strongly indicate it is not a more common name than Haida Gwaii.[1] Certainly the citation currently in the lede sentence does not support the current phrasing. My preference is the long-standing version using "formerly," but I would be open to any wording that doesn't make any uncited claims about the relative usage of the two names; "...also commonly referred to by its former official name..." seems a bit clunky, though.--Trystan (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I also think "formerly" is better than "more commonly", even if both are true (if both are true, "more commonly" is hard to prove, and may change over time anyway). The last paragraph of the lead briefly describes the official name change. Perhaps a sentence could be added there to point out how QCI remains very common despite the official change? That way the opening sentence could be succinct, with additional details still in the lead? Pfly (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the "formerly" wording.--Trystan (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still commonly referred to as Queen Charlotte Islands. No need to hide this fact. It's not because some law introduces a pseudo 'indigenous' name that the original name Queen Charlotte Islands is dead. --Wester (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. As an unofficial name, it is still 100% current; nothing "outdated" about it. Those who wish to add "former" need a source confirming that the name is not even (common?) in popular (as opposed to official) use anymore in English. Perhaps in 50 years, when only old people continue to use (or at least remember using) the name.

BTW, if the name Haida Gwaii really means "Islands of the people", shouldn't Haida Gwaii govern the plural, too? (Funny that the PC crowd never cares to comment or even, apparently, think about such issues ... to hell with the common folk, who have to live with their armchair decisions. How many actual linguists are involved in such attempted regulations of language? Hardly any, or they wouldn't be so undemocratic and poorly thought through.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm 57 and it was and still is commonly called the Charlottes/QCI, and not just by "old" people LOL (kids these days, sheesh, pardon me I gotta pluck the white hairs out of my grey-blond....Haida Gwaii is noticeably in official/public use but still most commonly referred to, even in BC, as the Charlottes. There's a compromise solution, I"m gonna do it, and will reject any attempt to use Wikipedia as a stage for the political rebranding or t he "selling" of the new name, or any attempt to discredit the continued use of the old one and its variant forms.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was saying: the name is not going to drop out of popular use anytime soon, if even the kids use it. I think you've misread me, I'm fully on your side. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What I had in mind won't work because of the way the opening paragraph is worded; I was going to put something like "Haida Gwaii, until xxxx year formerly officially, and still commonly known as, the Queen Charlotte Islands, also known as "the Charlottes" (easy to cite)" or some other compromise of that kind, is the way to go. Attempts to try to use this article as a stump for the rebranding and discredit the old name are a no-go and highly POV and not what Wikipedia is or should allow itself to be used for; there were long edit wars about this before the name change was official and enough media and other citations emerged to validate changing the name. And some one of those edits back at that link quoted at the opening of this section presumed to say that there were 'enough' cites that use Haida Gwaii to validate discontinuing to use the old one, even discrediting the old name; said editor claimed that there were not enough citations to warrant leaving the old one in use; some long ago tried to eradicate it entirely.....WP:SOAPBOX combined with violations of WP:COI and WP:AUTO.....the "old" name remains in wide use in global English, media and academia as well as travel and popular speech....and Haida Gwaii is not the name in many languages.......(German has adopted it now, I believe, at least Germans heading there....). "formerly and still commonly named as" is the format, and the emphasis is that this name was official...and still occurs in the name of the regional district, the local faultline, various geological formations etc etc etc. etc...and the Haida language pronunciation of Haida Gwaii belongs here, not just the English one (which I have a problem with the IPA for, because it doesn't represent American or Aussie or British English, nor even some CAnadian English; but that's a general across-the-board problem with Canadian names (Americans habitually say "Frazhier River" despite the "Fraser" spelling, for example.....I'm fresh back here, can't believe this is 'still' be argued about......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

I understand that many people have political sensitivities around this issue, but let's all try to continue to assume good faith. I'm not on any rebranding crusade. It simply made sense to me (and to the other editor who commented at the time) to have the introductory text based on the official name, in the interests of being concise. As I said, I am happy with any wording compatible with the facts:

• Queen Charlotte Islands is the former official name,
• Haida Gwaii is the current official name, and
• both Haida Gwaii and Queen Charlotte Islands are commonly used.

Perhaps just saying 'formerly' would be taken by many readers as referring to both official and common usage; fair enough. But at the same time, the new wording, "The Queen Charlotte Islands, since 2010 officially known as Haida Gwaii", would surely imply that HG is merely an official name, as opposed to one in widespread common usage. It also has the disadvantage of being unnecessarily surprising by not starting with the article title, which is the most common name according to our extensive canvassing of reliable sources, above. How about: "Haida Gwaii, also commonly referred to by its former official name, the Queen Charlotte Islands." That's not exactly concise, but it's crystal clear.

Regarding pluralization, it is clear from available sources that Haida Gwaii is treated as singular. It's not uncommon for foreign plural terms to take a singular form in English. Compare Polynesia (many islands).--Trystan (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Very true, as in Haida "Gwaay" is the singular e.g. Sgung Gwaay for what used to be called Nintints after one of its chiefs; But English usages as noted often take the singular when the plural is the real meaning; not really done for the British Isles but I'm sure I could come up with examples....there's little consistency across the board in various English usages; since this one is an IMPOSED one, it's not natural to start with in English....Skookum1 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Polynesia is an unsuited example as it's merely a (singular) compound ("many-island-land" or "Manyislandia", so to say), and not a phrase literally meaning "many islands", but whatever, I see your point and I know that etymology does not determine usage, but it is at least conceivable in principle that Haida Gwaii might be treated as a plural – at least if awareness of its (apparent – I have no clue about Haida grammar, so I just don't know if the translation is true) origin as a plural is still widespread enough at least among academics. But I suspect Haida is just too obscure for non-natives to know anything about plural marking in it.

While it is hard to avoid some OR in order to establish what is "in common use" or not, as there are unlikely to be citeable surveys about the question, to cut a long story short, I'm fine with the compromise solution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)