Jump to content

Talk:Salish Sea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Manyshoes (talk | contribs)
14 edits
Hughpac (talk | contribs)
37 edits
→Foot discoveries: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Oceans}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Canadian English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
⚫
{{WikiProject Oceans|importance=low}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Canada|geography=yes|bc=yes|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|WA=yes|WA-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Cascadia}}
{{WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography|class=C |importance=Mid}}
}}
⚫
{{Archive box|
* [[/Archive 1]]
* [[/Archive 2]]
}}


== Map ==
{{Talkheader}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Canada|geography=yes|bc=yes|class=B|importance=Mid}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Washington}}
⚫
[[/Archive 1]]


Now that there is a source clearly defining the northern limit of the Salish Sea (BCGNIS) it is possible to make a map showing the sea's boundary as defined. BCGNIS cites [http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/spd/docs/gbpsei.pdf this report], which includes a map, as the source of the boundary definition. The only odd thing is the western boundary, Cape Flattery to Carmanah Point. The report's map shows an odd pointy bit extending west from the straight line between the cape and point. I am guessing a straight line would be better, which would at least be in keeping with BCGNIS's text about it. In any case, I archived the old talk page here--it didn't seem relevant now that a couple years have passed and the name fully official--and wanted to post about how a clear map would be useful. Or just to remind myself to make it, someday. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk:Pfly|talk]]) 09:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
== Good source: CBC Radio documentary ==


Also, while I'm thinking about it, [http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/~stefan/SalishSea.htm this map] has been mentioned before as possibly useful here. It is attractive and might be acceptable to use on Wikipedia, maybe, or maybe if the creator gave explicit permission. Earlier today I thought about writing him and asking if it would be okay to use here. But then I found BCGNIS's explicit definition of the northern boundary of the Salish Sea. It differs significantly from this map's depiction, which includes waters too far north, all of [[Toba Inlet]] and [[Bute Inlet]], etc. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk:Pfly|talk]]) 09:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
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. --[[User:Kevlar67|Kevlar]] <small>([[User talk:Kevlar67|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kevlar67|contribs]])</small> 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


== US BGN approval ==
== Revising and improving ==


This article is incredibly weak mainly cause it only focuses on the name. This is, of course, ridiculous, and we don't treat any other waterbodies that way. I've started by rephrasing the intro to say that the Salish Sea is the network of waterways rather than the previous Salish Sea was coined to refer the the network of waterways. I'll put in some work on adding sections on the history, geology and life in the sea. [[User:Dondegroovily|<span style="color:red;">'''D&nbsp;O&nbsp;N&nbsp;D&nbsp;E'''</span>&nbsp;<small>groovily</small>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Dondegroovily|<span style="color:green;">Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</span>]] 12:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
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, [http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/gazvector.download_geonames_file?p_file=1462823364488900 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? [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk: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......[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Apologies, don't know much how this works. I noted this: "The French name Mer de Salish is also official in Canada." This links to http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/53200.html which uses the "des Salish" (i.e. not "de"). The Fr. page references both and doesn't substantiate why sometimes "de" is used. [[Special:Contributions/70.30.234.37|70.30.234.37]] ([[User talk:70.30.234.37|talk]]) 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
== Recent Changes==
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salish_Sea&diff=next&oldid=327341419 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.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salish_Sea&diff=prev&oldid=327341419 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.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salish_Sea&diff=prev&oldid=327334369 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]]. [[User:DigitalC|DigitalC]] ([[User talk:DigitalC|talk]]) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


== Foot discoveries ==
::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. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk:Pfly|talk]]) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


I think we can all agree that the section on “Foot Discoveries” isn’t in any way helpful or informative [[User:Hughpac|Hughpac]] ([[User talk:Hughpac|talk]]) 06:15, 10 September 2024 (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. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk: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....).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk: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....)[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk: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? ;-) [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk:Pfly|talk]]) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:Okay I just went ahead and made a slight tweak, fwiw. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/99.199.144.67|99.199.144.67]] ([[User talk: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 probably 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. (nika kumtux Chinook Wawa). [[User:Manyshoes|Manyshoes]] ([[User talk:Manyshoes|talk]]) 11:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:15, 10 September 2024

Map

[edit]

Now that there is a source clearly defining the northern limit of the Salish Sea (BCGNIS) it is possible to make a map showing the sea's boundary as defined. BCGNIS cites this report, which includes a map, as the source of the boundary definition. The only odd thing is the western boundary, Cape Flattery to Carmanah Point. The report's map shows an odd pointy bit extending west from the straight line between the cape and point. I am guessing a straight line would be better, which would at least be in keeping with BCGNIS's text about it. In any case, I archived the old talk page here--it didn't seem relevant now that a couple years have passed and the name fully official--and wanted to post about how a clear map would be useful. Or just to remind myself to make it, someday. Pfly (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm thinking about it, this map has been mentioned before as possibly useful here. It is attractive and might be acceptable to use on Wikipedia, maybe, or maybe if the creator gave explicit permission. Earlier today I thought about writing him and asking if it would be okay to use here. But then I found BCGNIS's explicit definition of the northern boundary of the Salish Sea. It differs significantly from this map's depiction, which includes waters too far north, all of Toba Inlet and Bute Inlet, etc. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising and improving

[edit]

This article is incredibly weak mainly cause it only focuses on the name. This is, of course, ridiculous, and we don't treat any other waterbodies that way. I've started by rephrasing the intro to say that the Salish Sea is the network of waterways rather than the previous Salish Sea was coined to refer the the network of waterways. I'll put in some work on adding sections on the history, geology and life in the sea. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, don't know much how this works. I noted this: "The French name Mer de Salish is also official in Canada." This links to http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/53200.html which uses the "des Salish" (i.e. not "de"). The Fr. page references both and doesn't substantiate why sometimes "de" is used. 70.30.234.37 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foot discoveries

[edit]

I think we can all agree that the section on “Foot Discoveries” isn’t in any way helpful or informative Hughpac (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salish_Sea&oldid=1244962213"