Talk:Clayoquot Sound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia / Geography (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Terminology "Sound"[edit]

This article refers to Clayoquot Sound as a land based geographic area when that term actually describes the waters adjacent to the area this article refers to. I believe that its use to refer to the land based area is fairly recent. Somehow we should remedy this misnomer. --KenWalker | Talk 08:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. there should at least be something about the actual Sound, which is quite complex and notable in its own right. I'll try to get to adding something about it. Pfly (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The same problem presents itself with Queen Charlotte Strait and Straight of Juan de Fuca as well as Nootka Sound and others; Howe Sound, too, is a "region name" as well a a body of water. This issue came up in Category talk:Puget Sound also, as Pfly noted re my consideration of a Category:Strait of Juan de Fuca subcat to Category:West Coast of Vancouver Island (and also Category:Queen Charlotte Strait as a subcat to Category:Central Coast of British Columbia, the Strait/Sound cats should bev for water bodies, not regions...Category:Juan de Fuca region is an option, in this case I guess Category:Clayoquot Sound region migth work, although for the Tofino-Ucluelet-Bamfield area in generala, as a subcat of the West Coast Cat, I was thinking Category:Pacific Rim....oh, that doesnt' work either, huh? Sigh.....not taht small-region cats are necessary.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Map is wrong[edit]

Unless its caption is adjusted to "Clayoquot Sound Management Unit" or whatever its working name is; the term Clayoquot Sound does not include waters outside of itself, i.e. Hesquiat Bay or lands outside its shores - Hesquiat Peninsula, or Long Beach for that matter. Either this is split into Clayoquot Sound Region and the sound proper is this article; I think the easier solution is to make a map. And remove the references to the Hesquiaht people being "in Clayoquot Sound". They're not, and indeed may take offence.Skookum1 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would generally agree with you, Map is wrong. Mostly in its deliniation of the southern boundary which includes many watersheds which drain into Barkley Sound. The generalized southern boundary, I would suggest be Green Point, on Long Beach. This also corrosponds with the traditional territorial boundary between the Tla-O-Qui-Aht and Ucluel-Aht First Nations. Furthermore, as a sound is a body of water encompassed by two points, Clayoquot is deliniated by Esowista Peninsula (Tofino) in the South, and Estevan Point (Hesquiaht Penninsula) in the North. As for the Hesquiaht First Nations, their territory does mostly fall within the boundries of Clayoquot. WestCoast222 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

The survey mentioned is misrepresented. The survey was a list of environmental issues and was commissioned by an environmental group. It wasn't even the top concern environmental wise. If it is going to be used, it needs to be clearly explained. Alternatively, it could be removed since all it says is that an environmental group asked 300 people if they were concerned about trees. Doesn't say much. Also, ecotrust.ca is not RS. Coverage from a source with an editorial vetting process (ie newspaper) should be provided. [1] Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement simply said that - "Recent surveys show over 78% of individuals living in the Clayoquot Sound region concerned about clear-cut logging. " That was one of the results form that survey. Would the statement be acceptable if it read: "A recent survey, commisioned by Ecotrust Canada, asked, amoung many topics, 'How personally concerned are you about the following environmental issues?'. The top-three responses to recieve a 'very-concerned' response were; Depletion of Ocean Fish Stocks (88%), Loss or Extinction of Wildlife (78%), and Clear-cutting of forests (78%)." On the point of 300 people asked... that is a substantial portion of the population of Clayoquot Sound (approx 5000ppl/300= 6%... a lot higher than most of the surveys we see on the news about the popularity of various presidents or prime-ministers) I dont want to defend ecotrust... Calling them an environmental group is a bit of a stretch on the traditional meaning of the word. Ecotrust, after all, helps manages a logging company (Issaak) in Clayoquot Sound. How can I quote this survey? The only place to get the results from the McCallister Opinion Research (an independent research company, using industry standard methodology), is on the Ecotrust Website. It is, in essence, the primary source of that information. I simply feel the survey helps give context to the beliefs of the local population. :) WestCoast222 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we need a reliable source and a private organization funding a survey which appears to be only environmental questions (78% were concerned when asked about environmental concerns. They might care about the economy or what they are having for dinner more). I'm worried about loaded questions causing a bias in the sampling.. Also, we need Wikipedia:Reliable sources and some random organization (no matter how well intentioned they are) don't meet the criteria.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I will argue that this survey covered MANY aspect, not just the environment. to quote the page:
   * Purpose & Methodology
   * Part 1 - Community Roots
   * Part 2 - Quality of Life
   * Part 3 - Community Concerns
   * Part 4 - Environment
   * Part 5 - Sustainability
   * Part 6 - Fisheries
   * Part 7 - Forestry
   * Part 8 - Recreation & Leisure
   * Part 9 - Media Habits
   * Part 10 - Internet Use 
Environmental question were only one segment. I dont see why a survey, if done to industry standards, can not be quoted... even if it was funded by an organization. Let me again say, that McCallister Opinion Research did this survey for Ecotrust, independently. Ecotrust did not alter the findings. The results of the survey are simply what people responded. If this survey is not recognizable, it puts into question every piece of research on any subject done by anyone (in my humble opinion). Every organization has an agenda (government, industry, non-profits, academia), but if a report is truely done independently, can we not accept it? I understand your comments about loaded questions, but what about my clarified statement above, which identifies the question asked. WestCoast222 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Because there is too much of a risk of bias. If the organization wrote the questions in a loaded manner it doesn't matter how reputable the people asking them are. And just as important, we have guidelines stipulating what is an appropriate source and a private organization promoting their goals (again they re good goals) on their website is not OK. If the article was about them they could maybe be used as a primary source but in this article the are just a biased observer who does not have the vetting process seen in academic or reputable media.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is just to note that EcoTrust has been very active in creating and augmenting various articles in Category:Nuu-chah-nulth and Category:Nuu-chah-nulth governments, a few of which may have notability issues, but most of which are or were "boilerplate" transferred over from EcoTrust's own website or sundry documents; no copyright on them so no copyvio, but a huge bulk of information, some of it POV in tone/bias. While on the one hand their contributions have augmented modern and historical ethnographic/sociological features and the way the Nuu-chah-nulth are organized, there seems a clear misapprehension that Wikipedia articles are or can be used as "free webspace" . I've vetted some of the articles in question but they all need a going over....and also to note that EcoTrust, like other ecological/environmental organizations, often presents what-if or wished-for realities as if they were a done deal and/or rooted in history (such as the claim that "Kwakwaka'wakw Sea" is a traditional name for Queen Charlotte Strait). Other articles where POV inputters have been active and/or held in check are Great Near Rainforest and Queen Charlotte Islands and Sacred Headwaters.Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Also to note that it is axiomatic in polling "by industry standards" is that the results, as Cptnonon indicates, are the result of engineered questions designed to get the desired responses; this is standard fare in analyses of political polling, i.e. when commissioned by parties or partisan groups. Similarly, consultants produce reports/conclusions saying what they were paid to find/say....just because McAllister is an indpendent company doesn't mean that the poll wasn't biased in intent, questions, or analysis.Skookum1 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Other editor's lapse in following protocol does not excuse us from doing the same. Also, it isn't a good idea to point out articles to emulate unless they are rated high pon the assessment scale. And what Skookum said. Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just trying to add citations to the page to increase its respectability. I was trying to remove POV from the article, and add sourced facts, dates, and figures in order to give the reader a fair understanding of the subject. Someone had added the "Needs Updating" tag to the top, so I tried to accomplish this by referencing a recent study (the one in question). Thanks for clarifying your opinions on the subject of this survey. I may be fairly fresh to Wikipedia, but I only want to contribute in a positive way. I still think, and I ask your opinion, that pretty much all research, regardless of source is capable of holding bias. Research by its nature, is essentially surveys (of the natural world, or human culture). So, I am simply confused by where to draw the line on who's research can be accepted? Could you clarify? For instance, Government sources vs industry sources vs non-profit sources vs acedemic sources will often report 'facts' in very different ways, depending on view-point or objectives. I'm not trying to be difficult... I just like the discussion. WestCoast222 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I should have mentioned this earlier: Nice work. I actually removed the fluffy wording tag after your edits. I was going to remove the sources tag since you put so many that were needed in but there are a couple sections without sources. I also was kind of a dick by reverting you without getting more of an explanation in on this talk page.
Academic and news coverage are the easiest. If you have a book or two that would be great. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of sources. I prefer Google News Archive searches, Google Scholar, and my personal library. Keep in mind there are still various guidelines but as a start:
  • a story in Victoria's Times-Colonist, The Seattle Times, or The Vancouver Sun
  • a book on local wildlife, kayaking, etc
  • a published paper from a University (as is now in)
  • a trustworthy government resource might work here as well.
Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Editing without references[edit]

Oh my goodness. I am reverting a number of edits made to the page today (Dec 16) as many are made without reference, and quite honestly, are false. There were some edits that were quite warrented, as in removing slanted language or statements and I will leave those. Please, I beg of you, if you are going to edit a statement, that is fine, but you CANNOT continue to attribute it to the previous reference. It leads people to believe something is varifiable when it is not. I am fine if you want to change a statement, but, please, attribute it to a new reference. WestCoast222 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources re name and other matters[edit]

Stack up CBC, Vancouver Sun, gardening sites etc and even adopt their buzzwords ("pristine" e.g.), but they're still wrong about the name, or "fuzzy" on it and are latter-day mushinesses, often simply parroting other errors and claims that, while popular, aren't true, or at best incomplete; Captain Walbran, Father Brabant, and BCGNIS give a much fuller and relevant account than the claim that "Clayoquot" is an "anglicized" name, given that it doesn't look anything like English. See "Clayoquot Sound". BC Geographical Names.  and "Clayoquot (locality)". BC Geographical Names.  for more; I can't remember where I saw the Clayoqua Indian Reserve 6 as the origin of the term, maybe on one of the Nuu-chah-nulth sites, though the locality Clayoquot isn't at the same location as the IR. Walbran and Brabant are fair game to blockquote in the name section, also....as for repeating the CBC's adoption of eco-group mantra like "pristine old-growth forests", that's an issue of POV-slanted sources and "plain language" should be used, sans peacockery and buzzwords. this page reads far too much like a tract as it is....Skookum1 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PS "Clayoquot" very clearly couldn't be an adaptation of the name of the Tls-O-Qui-aht First Nations because that band government hadn't adopted that name until nearly two centuries after "Clayoquot" appeared on the map; what "Tla-O-Qui-aht" is is the transposition of a modern orthography on top of an older, long-accepted historical-usage rendering of the Nuu-chah-nulth phrase; Clayoqout in the 1980s and 1790s pretty clearly couldn't have been an "anglicization" of a term/spelling that wasn't invented until nearly two centuries later.....get it now?Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
From Father Brabant as quoted in Walbran:
The name of this sound is derived from the tribe of Indians residing there, and was spelt by the early traders, dating from 1785, Clioquatt, Clayocuat, Klaooquat and Klahoquaht.
Clayoquot and Tla-o-qui-aht ARE THE SAME WORD, as are those other spellings. Calling the usual usage an "anglicization" is a conceit, much like the claim that the name "Squamish" is wrong because it wasn't rendered Skwxwu7mesh (with underscores on the x's and superscript w's). Alternate spellings of foreign-language names/words are NOT "anglicizations", no matter what the CBC or the Vancouver Sun or the Ucluelet rain-gardening society has to say about it....Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 : I agree with you regarding trying to use unslanted language. Thats why I left some of the changes you made. I did refer to See "Clayoquot Sound". BC Geographical Names.  (which you suggest) and it confirms the statement that Clayoquot is derived from Tla-o-qui-aht. As for using CBC articles and such, I was just following the disscussion above, where Cptnono suggests we should use references with editorial control, ie: cbc. WestCoast222 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to argue with you regarding semantics around the word 'anglicization'. I will change it to say it is 'dervived' from the name of the tribe. WestCoast222 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
BCGNIS doesn't mention "Tla-O-Qui-aht". It says only:
The name Clayoquot is derived from "Tla-o" or "Cla-o" meaning another, or different; "aht" means people or village, hence "Cla-o-quaht" means people different from what they used to be. There is a tradition to the effect that the inhabitants here were originally quiet and peaceful, later they became quarrelsome and treacherous; hence they were called by their neighbours "Cla-o-quaht.
"Clayoquot Indians elsewhere in the article refers to the Indians of Clayoquot, the locality near Stubbs Bay, and from what I recall of the other history I looked at (maybe Handbook of North American Indians, which is on GoogleBooks) the story of Clayoqua is given and how the peaceable people there armed themselves and moved from that inland location (at the mouth of Kennedy Lake's Clayoquot Arm) to the village site in the sound. Not that all forms seen are quot/kwat, not qui-aht....and note also that 0.Tla-O-Qui-aht First Nations is plural, reflecting the band governments' integration of formerly separate peoples/nations, including those of Clayoquot (the locality/village). If there's a lexical/semantic difference with qui-aht vs quaht I don't know but it would seem likely; I'll see if anyone on Talk:Nuu-chah-nulth language or similar pages might be able to say if there's a difference in meaning. And I'll repeat - a 200 year old spelling can not be derived from a modern spelling; it's logically impossible that something in the past can be based upon something invented more recently, time just doesn't work that way (especially if that modern spelling means, um, something a bit different).Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I live in Clayoquot Sound, and am fairly familiar with the history and naming of things. I do not want to mis-represent anything, therefore I value your comments. I will only edit the page where I can provide references. So... with that said, the modern spelling of Tla-o-qui-aht is with lower case after the initial 'T' (see: http://www.tla-o-qui-aht.org/ ) . The Tla-o-qui-aht were often refered to as the Clayoquot in the past. You are correct that the Tla-o-qui-aht formally inhabited the area around Kennedy Lake. In later times (late 18th century) they moved to the coast (there was a war with previous inhabitants). There may be a reserve at Kennedy lake named after the Tla-o-qui-aht (Clayoquot), but that is not where 'Clayoquot Sound' derived its name. Again I agree that an old name can not be derived from a modern spelling (you obviously cannot go back in time). However the name Tla-o-qui-aht is old enough to have been the root of the name Clayoquot. To confuse matters more, the original European village site was on 'Stubbs' Island, and the village was named 'Clayoquot Village'. Stubbs island (and the village of Clayoquot) happens to lie adjacent to modern day Tofino, but more importantly, adjacent to the ancient Tla-o-qui-aht (Clayoquot) village site of Opitsat on Meares Island. The suffix 'aht' (as in Tla-o-qui-aht, Ahousaht, Hesquiaht, Nootka'ht', Muchalaht, Nuchatlitzaht, Kyuquot) means, roughtly, 'people' or 'people of' (as you mentioned above). Hence Tla-o-qui-aht means different peoples, Ahousaht means 'People of Ahous' (the name of a large Bay, and former village site), and Hesquiaht, I believe means somthing about the sound the people make when they pull hemlock boughs with Herring roe on them through their teeth. I hope some of this helps clarify.WestCoast222 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh I wanted to add, a better explanation on how Tla-o-qui-aht became the word Clayoquot. When the word Tla-o-qui-aht is correctly pronounced, it sounds quite similar to the word Clayoquot. The 'T' in 'Tla' is pronounced like a hard 'K', becoming somthing like 'Kla'. So the word Tla-o-qui-aht = Tla(Kla)-o(o)-qui(qu)-aht(ot) = Kla-o-qu-ot = Clay-o-qu-ot = Clayoquot. Obviously I'm no linguist, and this is the best I can do to explain this little part in writing. WestCoast222 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding Information[edit]

As part of our History 396 class at the University of British Columbia our team would like to add two sections to this article. Here are our proposed additions:

5 Logging Protests

5.1 Origins of Controversy

-This section will discuss the controversy in the area that existed prior to the mass protests and blockades
-Policies and new opinions that began to emerge in the 1960s with regard to British Columbia’s forest industry

5.2 Blockades and Protests

-Although there is already some information on the blockades and protests this section will bring in more detail on the subject
-Showing the different sides of the controversy and the interests of the separate groups

5.3 Media and Protest Attention

-The logging protests and blockades received mass media attention and brought forward issues that were happening throughout the province during this period
-Looking at how the media portrayed the event and the different sides that were covered

6 Trials, Arrests and Aftermath of Protests

6.1 Trial Outcomes

-Looking at the mass arrests that resulted in many individuals having to go to trial and outcomes of those trials

6.2 Aftermath of the Controversy

-How did this event change policies in British Columbia?
-What happened in the area after the controversy? --Ashleypiv —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC).


Just to clarify, our team will be reworking and adding to the existing Logging protests section, and adding a new section: Trials, Arrests and Aftermath of Protests.--Mmann7 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added an introductory paragraph to the Logging protests section, which gives a general idea of what will be added in the following weeks, as part of our project. For the most part, the rest of the information in the section fits into what we will be writing about, but we will probably reorganize the section a bit as well.--Mmann7 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added in a section called Media and Protest Attention. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to cite sources after every paragraph for clarity or not, so I did anyways. If this is incorrect please let me know. But I have added in information regarding how the media focused attention away from dramatic events towards stakeholder consolidation. --Aliarayan (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Just an update, our team will be posting the rest of our article over the next few days, in about 500 word chunks. As Alia said, any feedback on our formatting or information would be appreciated!--Mmann7 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Added my section on the aftermath of protests, will possibly be adding some more information on the more recent years (and how policy/logging rights have changed, if at all) in the next few days. --Fziza (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Added in another paragraph in the media section! --Aliarayan (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just edited the aftermath of the protests section. I re-worded the entire first paragraph to be more coherent, did a lot of small grammatical changes and larger sentence re-structuring so that the ideas flowed more smoothly.--Aliarayan (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the trial outcomes, I just edited some small grammatical errors and combined some sentences together.--Aliarayan (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In origins of the controversy, I edited a lot of various information. There was repetition of the same words (especially 'however') and some of the writing appeared to be a little biased, so I made it sound more neutral. The structuring was a little off (sometimes there would be 1 space after the period and sometimes 2 spaces) so I tried to fix those, but if anyone else sees that feel free to re-edit. Sometimes there was also writing that appeared irrelevant to the article, so I deleted a little bit of information where I felt it was not necessary, for example the part about the tourist representative walking out and getting replaced by a new group, when the new group wasn't mentioned.--Aliarayan (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)