Jump to content

Talk:Katzie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resource[edit]

This is a history of the Katzie peoplel; link dropped here for resource use; Katzie people article yet in need of writing (this article is for the band government, or shoudl be).Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did to turn this article into a band gov't article? 90% of the content is about the people, and there is almost no information on the band government. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the band government article is really a stub in need of work; other band government articles, once separated, do tend to "grow content". There are two uses/meanings to the phrase "Katzie First Nation", and one happens to be the legal name of their constituted governing body or as user:OldManRivers would tell you is "the Indian Act government". This is why there's a separate Swkxwu7mesh article from the Squamish Nation one, and why there are separate Sto:lo Nation and Sto:lo Tribal Council articles from Sto:lo, which is meant to be the ethnographic article. This is generaly guideline that's been ongoing as an outgrowht of discussions somewhere in the talkpages of {{NorthAmNative}} and while it's not been applied sonsistently across the board, it has reasons to exist - witness "Sto:lo Nation" vs "Sto:lo" in terms of content. The KFN govt article would carry treaty/negotation/council history, information on band/cmomunity resources and legal issues etc; teh ethnographic article for the "heritage material". Same idea as why language articles are, or should be, separate from ethnographic articles; one is about the language, the other is about the people/culture/history, and the gtovernment articles are about the apparatus of their modern institutions and how those came about. That in many cases it's difficult to distinguish between the band and the people, i.e .when they're very small orisolates, the fact remains that there's a difference between an article that would be about a particular government/organization, and an article about the people governed by that organization/government. England vs English people...ooops vs Kingdom of England and English language also.....The Katzie's name as a people are "the Katzie", adding "First Nation" is just a latter-day emendation not reuquired by t he original usage; and also prone to cause confusion. A people is not its government.....some might like to pretend that the government and the people are indistinguishable; that's only in ideology; in terms of reality, they're different hings....Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your policy on this, Skookum, but my point is that the majority of this article is cultural ("people") content, not First Nations government content. An appropriate action would have been to move the current article to Katzie people and (if you felt inspired) create a new Katzie First Nation stub article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, duh. Adn how many fingers and keyboards and hours do you think I have, Quill? For pity's sake, it's not me who added the ethno content - which was added by someone unfamiliar with the delineation/guidelines concerning page content/titles. Yes, an appropriate thing to do would have been to create katzie people and move the ethno content there; why didn't YOU do that? *I* did not "turn this into" a band government article, i rewrote the intro to conform to the existing name-standards whereby articles with "First Nation" in the title are government articles, and those without are not. No doubt you, in all innocence, figured that "Katzie First Nation" is a term for the ethnogtraphic group, and in some contexts it is. But if you'd looked around the many "XXX First Nation" stubs in BC, you'd see that they are government articles, and "XXX" and "XXX people" are the non-government articles. If you wanted this to be an ethnographic article, then YOU should have titled it Katzie people and not ignored the developed conventin/guideline. I repeat, if you want this to be an ethnobrahpic article then rename it; otherwise do the simple procedure of recognizing hte problem, making [[Katzie people] ]by migrating content from here, and allow this to be the band government article its title predicates......one BIG reason the "Nation" and "First Nation" article titles are needed for governments is because of the BIG difference in meaning between, for example, Shuswap First Nation and Shuswap Nation and Secwepemc - the last named being the ethno article, the first the Columbia Valley band aka Skookumchuck Band, and the middle one the southerly of two Secwepemc tribal councils. I oculd point to other examples were "XXX nation" and "XXX First Nation" cauess confusion with existing band/tribal councils, but they're too many to even begin listing; THAT is why this convention was developed, especially in BC's case. To some earnest ethnography amateurs "Kwakiutl First Nation" might might the Kwakwaka'wakw; in practice it means only the Fort Rupert Band; and User:OldManRivers has distinguished between them ethnographically as Kwagyulh and the band as "Kwakiutl First Nation"....even though they're pronounced the same, as he recently emphasized. A capital-F capital-N First Nation is a government; perhaps in lower case it might be acceptable to use it to mean "tribe" (not used very often in Canada, very common south of the line) but to have it mean both "the people" and "their government" is not workable, and too confusing to the lay reader. Again, instead of accusing me of "trying to change this article", why not recognize what your original mistake was and FIX IT?? Sheesh.Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I started the article before you decided the guidelines. Second, I'm not in full agreement in with your guidelines. Third, I'll "fix it" now. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me who decided the guidelines; it was consensus within {{NorthAmNative}}; it was me who began to apply it in BC, and build whole infrastructures of articles because it's a maze of different ethnic and band realities that needed sorting out, too (BC is very complex relative to other areas of teh continent; there are areas of greater linguistic diversity, but not any kind of similar political fracturing/web, nothing even close) ; people, band and reserve don't often coincide in BC and various other areas.. It's not been applied cross the board in US or eastern Canadian articles, either; there's just no enough NorthAmNative editors; it's an ongoing project and there's tons of redlinks/unwritten articles in all categories, though the North Central and North there's a lot yet un doen; Ktunaxa is one in southern BC that needs splitting up in various ways (where taht redirects to, rather) and Cowichan Tribes vs Cowichan people is a whole problematic in its own right, if you know the lay of the political/ethno geography there and also the history of the term, likewise Straits Salish and what's left undone in the Fraser Valley/Lower Mainland. The Katzie are one group within t5he community of river peoples now known as the Sto:lo that do need a distinct article; for others it may be more difficult and tehe ethno article in those cases is simply Sto:lo; but their band governments still are distinct, as are their villages and reserves. Think about it, it makes eminent sense; and helps out in intertribal/interethnic tribal coujncils and bands like Carrier Chilcotin TC and Xaixais and Nicola....people articles span several governments, and I think you might remember that Sto:lo Nation originally was a redirect, or was the original name of, what is now the Sto:lo article, but the capita-N usage predicates taht it go to the official name using htat term, not the general ethnological sense. The policy was developed by {{NorthAmNative}} - the guideline, that is - including a lot of indigenous editors, User:Phaedriel included but I think also user:Kevin Myers (Phaedriel is on extended wikibreak, new kid+wiki-exhaustion I think). OldManRivers agrees with it, Murderbike sees the point of it; in areas like Category:Dakelh and Category:Coast Salish it's very necessary, also. And when you understand the lay of the land in the Nlaka'pamxu and St'at'imc categories, with a scattered map of different TCs and some independent bands, it's pretty obvious government articles need to be separate from ethno articles; even on a local baseis, becaus archaeological and historical material is still a separate subject from the compsotion of band councils and the history of treaties and plots of land/IR. Again, I didn't create teh policy; I've only ben trying to apply it, and comment on where it needs to be brought to bear; Nuxalk and Nuxalk Nation should be separate, if they're not already, Tsimshian Nation was a now-defunction tribal council acc the TTC, and it's why Tsimshian has only that title, as the ethno article; Dene needs major expansion as the pan-Athapaskan ethno article, Ache Dene Koe and all the other Dakelh/Dene articles yet need doing, and tehre are more than one band council for many of them. Native cultures/identities are not monolithic (though popular imagery among non-natives is taht they are), and there's a difference between teh government imposed on them and tehir own history; it's a common sentiment within NorthAmNative, and not of my invention. I do understand it, especially in the context of certain areas/groups that, for a sama7, I'm pretty familiar with the breakdowns of. Multiple tribal councils, multiple ethnicites within tribal councils, sometimes within reserves ,separaet histories for peoples once enemies now in teh same bands (very common among hte Kwakwaka'wakw and Haida and Nuu-cha-nulth and Tlingit etc etc). There are things that have to do with band governments and councils; there aer things that have to do with peoples and their history, abnd villages can be separate entities, somteims distinct from teh land history of the physical reservdes; some communities don't have reserves in fact, which is another reason, and also seasonal villagse and camps are separtely notable in many cases; adn not all ethno articles are relate;d to band councsils, either Skayuks Tsetsaut, Nicola Athapaskans; there may have been a Pentlatch Indian Band, I don't know; we're lucky at this point if there's a Pentlatch article that's anything more than a language start-clasds. That's why. Adn it wasn't me who made it that way, either in reality or in wiki guidelines, but it was also teh only way to bring order to a veritable sea of articles, written and unwritten. gotta go food's getting cold sorry for remaininf typos. BTW lok up Coquitlam and Kikait in BCGNIS and you'll see a few more complexities in need of unravelling....realted to this article, taht is.Skookum1 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spelling/usage of Sto:lo[edit]

The use of "Stó:lō" as if it were teh "right" spelling just doesn't wash; it's a poiltical spelling, preferred by the one tribal council, and not used at all by the other, and this group does not belong to the tribal council tha tuses it, nor the other one. The target article, even when it had diacriticals in its title, idd not have those diacriticals (there are five or six different a-setes, each one supposed to be "correct" according to its proponents/users). Also there was no point in say "the Katzie are a Sto:lo people in teh Lower Fraser Valley" because that means nothing to someone dropping in from far away; they're an indigenous people, simply put, and it can be explained that they are grouped with the Sto:lo; you should not assume this is a term in wide currency, despite our familiarity with it in BC.Skookum1 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map shown is wrong; I've raised the problem with its creator and hopefully we'll see a new edition soon; refer to thet Kaztie website map for the difference....I'm not sure Stave Lake belongs in it at all in fact, but it may that hte FN (band)'s calim is fdiffernt from the traditional territory. There can' be a difference. Main problem is not showing most of Surrey; needless to say overlaps with the boundaries/territories of the Kwantlen, Kway-quiht-lum, Tsawwassen, Musqueam and others.Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

translation from more extensive German Wikipedia article[edit]

I happened to find this in German Wikipedia; I guess I'll take it to WP:Translation, other articles in the same category are similarly much more fully fleshed out than their English counterparts.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katzie First Nation. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Katzie First Nation. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katzie&oldid=1214277778"