User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite

"[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."

—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner

You may play in my sandboxes, in the archive list to the right, IF you promise to behave. This means:

• No kicking sand
• No hitting other people over the head with toys
• No pooping, even if you are a cat and neatly cover it up!
• It's my sandbox, so I can throw you out if you misbehave!  :-)

Before you post on my talk page (humor)

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you mangled fen-sucked horn-beast!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you lumpish milk-livered codpiece.

Happy Montanabw's Day!

User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Montanabw's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Montanabw! Peace, Rlevse 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, gee! That was really super nice! Thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Horse genome

Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death

Hello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP#Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Butte, Montana notable people

Hi. I'm not sure why it is an issue that I am adding Rep. Amanda Curtis to the Notable People section of the Butte, Montana article. I provided a link, and there are also many other sources to prove her at least worthy of being a notable person. Why must one, or at least in this case, Rep. Curtis, have a Wikipedia article written about them to be added to that list of notable people? I will let you know I have already created an article for her and it is waiting to be reviewed. I will also let you know that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia, many regarding politics, education, etc. from your home state of Montana that have Notable people sections of their articles that have individuals listed with a source but no Wikipedia article written about them. I would really appreciate an answer. Thanks for your time. - DONALDderosa (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll review the article and see if we can get it up there. Everyone in a "notable people" section should be someone who can pass the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, which, as a rule, is easily doable for a state legislator. Many Montana legislators have articles here in WP. The point is that we need articles. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would love if you could review the article. Let me know what I can do to help. - DONALDderosa (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, feel free to disregard

Hey, Montanabw, I've been vaguely following the whole "Suicide of x" thing. I don't think it has anything to do with anti-whatever bias, and I'm not really sure why you think it is. But that's as may be: it's your prerogative to think what you want, and discrimination has certainly taken weirder guises. Let me just throw this article out there, though: Shooting of Trayvon Martin also follows this naming scheme, and I don't think Trayvon was gay (obviously not female). Granted, he was black, so it's still not totally impossible that it's prejudicial, but I really don't think it's that universal. Anyway, happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the vehemence with which any human being is deemed "not notable" is really offensive to me. If they have sufficient notability- for whatever reason - for a WP article, then the first article should be about them by their own name, a "sensationalistic death of" title would only be for a follow up, as was seen for JFK or someone like that. Seems like the bullies get named articles (the Columbine shooters, for example), but not the bullied. Trayvon Martin fits that as well. Sad. (for anyone else stalking this discussion,see Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.(second_request)) Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I can see it from another angle, too. Like it or not, if these people are notable, they're notable for their deaths, not their lives. It's sad to say, but it is true. An article about them would necessarily almost exclusively focus on their death, and I could see an argument being made that, if the article is named after them and is about them, it should be about their lives, not deaths. But there aren't any sources that discuss their lives, so we can't write anything about it. So we end up focusing on their deaths almost exclusively, and I could see people getting angry and feeling cheated about that, that the article that is purportedly about them as a person is really just about their death. Naming these articles "Suicide/death/shooting/whatever of x" can seem heartless, but it's also more intellectually honest about our interest, as an encyclopedia, about them. It's sad (and it's a sad world indeed that this is true), but the reliable sources' interest in these people is not them as people, it's them as a casualty, and we are bound as an encyclopedia to follow those sources. Just my unstudied opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see it as worse than "heartless" - it is simply not objective, particularly when we already have WP:NOTABILITY to determine if someone gets an article at all, or not. "Them as a casualty" is even more offensive! I see it as a variant on WP:BLP; we don't title the article on Lawnchair Larry, famous mostly for only one thing (WP:BIO1E seems to be a very subjective standard) something descriptive like Near-darwin-award-winning act of Larry Walters, we just title it Larry Walters. If we are talking about human beings as individuals, then we need to dignify their core biography with their name, and just their name. If we are merely looking at people who died in unusual ways, we have lists for that, such as List of horse accidents, for example. If a person, individually, meets the notability standard, then give them a little dignity! I mean, some people would argue that Jesus Christ is only notable for his death too - he wrote no books, earned no fortune, starred in no movies... and other people started the religion named after him... (OK, I'm exaggerating to make a point here). Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The counter-argument to that is that these people aren't notable; their deaths are, and that the two are not one and the same. The difference between Lawnchair Larry and these people is that Larry's article is still focused on him. Look at the subjects of the sentences: they're mostly Larry. But compare that to Trayvon Martin's article: in Trayvon's article, few of the sentences have Trayvon as a subject (in fact, there seem to be many more about Zimmerman than Trayvon, and many that are about neither). Look at Killing of Travis Alexander (who was a straight white male). Certainly more of the article is about him than Trayvon's, but there are still as many or more sentences discussing Jodi Arrias, again with several about neither. The point is that these articles don't talk about the victims' lives much. They're not about the victims, they're about the crime/suicide/event. Lawnchair Larry's article still ends up being about him; these don't end up being about the victims. Our naming scheme reflects that. It's heartless and perhaps cruel, but it's a heartless and cruel world, and that world is what the sources we rely on so much describe, and so it's what we are forced to reflect.

If there were enough sources covering their life to write a sizable article, then what you're saying is true; they should get their own article, named after themselves, just like anyone else. But I would imagine there just aren't enough sources to do that. And I would argue that it's not a good idea for us to coatrack an article that's named after them as a person to discuss their deaths, the perpetrators if any (they also never seem to have their own article), and other subjects not directly related to their lives. Without sources to fully flesh out their lives, I don't see how it's any kinder to name the article after just the person and then go on to barely talk about them at all.

Note that I haven't looked at any of the other articles save the ones I've linked here; that's why I'm not planning on commenting in the second RfC and instead discussing things here. if any of those articles have a solid section about the life of the victim that could stand alone, then your argument has a lot of merit, and those sections could (and perhaps should) be spun off into their own articles. But my impression is that such is not the case, and merely renaming the article without changing what the article actually talks about is no kindness. Again, just my opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the overall theme is titling of an article mostly concerning a single victim of a single wrongdoer (or perhaps group of bullying wrongdoers). I think that, for example, someone's parent would feel pretty bad to hear these discussions. It's a dignity issue, not an "event" issue. And frankly, Killing of Travis Alexander? I would raise a notability issue on that one, local news at best, where is the larger societal issue? Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know Travis Alexander; I wasn't defending it as an article per se, just as an example of why the naming scheme is what it is. As for the theme, I think it's just a result of circumstance: it's cases like these, where a member of a minority gets killed or driven to suicide by a member outside that minority, that draw attention and get championed as "what a shock and example of the societal issues!" that lead to this type of article. The crimes get covered by the media and the societal discussion to the exclusion of the victim, who become sort of faceless figureheads to the cause du jour. Yes, that's horrible and inhuman, but that's the thing of it: it's not that I disagree with you, it's that the problem doesn't lie in naming schemes or indeed in Wikipedia itself. The problem is this: we cannot write an article about the lives of these people, because there are no sources, because the sources are too busy talking about their deaths. The way I see it, and given the lack of sources that talk about their life, we have five options, all unpalatable: we do it the way we have now, with an article about the event. We have the article about the event, covering little to nothing of the person's life, but titled with their name, which still does little to treat them as a human being but now adds a relatively misleading title. We have a separate article that is either a near duplicate of the content of the "event" article or a permanent microstub, which is pretty unmanageable in the former (since edits to one would have to be reflected in the other) and still insensitive for the latter, since their life is still not covered. We have no article at all, which falls prey to NOTCENSORED. Or we throw verifiability out the window, which is obviously unworkable. The problem is that it's our sources that don't treat these victims as human; our treatment of them is simply a reflection of the sources' treatment of them, for better or worse (one of the Wikipedia model's greatest flaws). I don't think using an inaccurate page title offsets enough of that to be worth it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the policy is also very inconsistent. You make a case for notability, but to me, no one would search for "suicide of Foo", they will search for "Foo," or perhaps the tragedy. An article may be unbalanced because it focuses on their death, but that doesn't mean that the article's title is "misleading" -- I mean, many people are famous mostly for one thing, and there may be few sources on that person's life other than about the one thing, but they still get a bio with their own name in many cases. (I keep harping on Lawnchair Larry for this). It seems that to eliminate the "death of" titles as the primary article title is not only respectful, but also simpler and eliminates any number of edit war. What would be wrong with a policy that if an article passes WP:NOTABILITY at all, then if it's mostly about an individual person, then it is titled with the name of that person? Then, any ADDITIONAL articles about something unique about their life, such as the means of their death, if enough to warrant a spinoff without content forking, then the additional article gets the "death of" title. Why is this so difficult? Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But that's the thing: that's what our policy is now. The problem is that an article that's mostly about these individual people doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY. It's only after all of the other content describing the murderers/other perpretrators/societal change/new laws/etc. etc. that the article does pass notability, and at that point, the article isn't mostly about these individual people any more. One way or another, an interesting case study would be Matthew Shepard. Shepard's case was similar to many of the ones we've been describing. I look at the article and I would say that, unlike these other articles I've looked at and like Lawnchair Larry, the overall subject of the article is still Shepard. More than half the article seems to be discussing him (aided in large part by the depictions in media section), though there's a substantial minority discussing the social changes brought about by his death. But it's a lot closer to your argument, and I can see it from your perspective too, though. But that's kind of the point in my mind: if an article is discussing a person for less than half of the article, then the article isn't really about them and shouldn't use their name as a title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Another example to look at is AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman. As an individual, the BIO1E rule would apply, would it not? Was she "notable" at age 9 had she not been a murder victim? But because her death led to a significant public policy change, is that why we don't have an article titled "murder of..."? Kelly Yeomans' death led to a raised consciousness about peer bullying, which is probably why there is an article on her, as opposed to her inclusion on a list of victims, as seen with the article on Columbine. I really think there is a serious issue of insensitivity here, and the calloused comments at the move discussion are quite missing the point. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point well-made. But I would recommend against reading too much into a supposed double-standard for suicides and other types of deaths, as you did on the parallel talk page post; it's clear from the Travis/Trayvon examples that these naming schemes aren't exclusive to articles on suicide, so it's more likely just a case of different editors with different interpretations of naming policy creating similarly-themed articles. I think it weakens your argument to assert double-standards and bias where none likely exists. I also think you're overestimating the importance of an article's title, but reasonable people can differ about that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the double standard is probably there, it's just so often subconscious and I admit that people DO get defensive when it's pointed out. (no one wants to be called racist/sexist/homophobic, and often the bias is subtle, subconscious and/or unexamined) I will agree that it probably isn't helping the argument to raise it, but it IS there, sad to say. But even if I had the time and energy to dig through all of WP to gather stats, it would not likely change any attitudes. I have to think about how far I want to push this issue right now (so many other fish to fry...) and how to get a good cross section of people of goodwill to think it through. Few are like yourself, willing to think through an argument. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, even just looking at the autocomplete from typing "murder of" into the search box shows quite a few non-suicide articles following the pattern, so I'm still not sure that the bias is there (or at least, that this naming scheme is an artifact of bias). It might be there, though. In any event, I've run out of words (at long last); ending on a "respectfully agree to disagree" is still a win in my book, and it's always good to get another person's take on a topic (even a topic as depressing as this :P). I still don't think I agree with it, but I can see where you're coming from, and yours is not at all an unreasonable view to have. Cheers! :)Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 13:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Table sucks

Yes, it sucks, too much white space, too much code. I can add images to the current table if you want.

I don't know who you are anon IP, but I am adding images now. I will not be hurt if formatting is improved by cutting down the white space if you know what you are doing. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-;) PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You just edited while logged out... but I'll be done finding images in a sec, then you can fix the code to your heart's content and find more images too! (I'm trying to be sure all are actually taken in Montana and have proper licensing, but you can do so too) Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's making way too much white space. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

May have to call in RexxS, he's the Table God of Wiki. PumpkinSky talk 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the middle column is way too wide, ping anyone who knows how to shrink it down, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MariaTheresaSidesaddle.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:MariaTheresaSidesaddle.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dutchman

I got into trouble with some editors over this since for some reason the opera is listed in Wikpedia as 'The Flying Dutchman', not as 'Der fliegende Holländer' and editors offered stout resistance against changing the opera article title. But I am quite happy with your edit - let's see if it evokes any reactions!--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was in on that move discussion too. I'd argue that here, we are simply keeping things consistent as far as order goes, and that the biography doesn't have to march in lockstep with the "more popular" English title of the article about the opera. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--Smerus (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AMBER alert/Amber Hagerman

I proposed a merger of two articles. Join in discussion at Talk:Amber Hagerman. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will oppose that merge, though primarily because of my deep concern about the dehumanization of such victims on wikipedia articles. I agree that particular article is rather a stub, though. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pie-eyed

Wow, the amount of discussion and vitriol on that article is mind-bending, especially considering almost nothing is known about the people. My mom had nothing to add about their identity, and I posted on the talk page what a knowledgeable friend who works for his tribe says on the matter, just because I was curious to know what *is* known about these people. Answer: practically nothing. Cheerio, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I hear you. But the "white Indians" thing just won't go away, will it? And of course, there is NOTHING to do with racism there, nothing at all!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed the reference to the slant-eye monster. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Re: Montana State Fish

BW, why do you insist on linking to the Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewis) (previously Salmo) instead of just Cutthroat Trout. The State fish is not the Westslope, but the Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii) of which Two subspecies make up the Montana population--the Westslope (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and the Yellowstone (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri). If the state code is the binding source, then it is clear from that source that the Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi subspecies is not the state fish. That fact is reiterated in the first and second sentence here: [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the statute - and the other state web site source - says blackspotted (westslope) cutthroat - see the MCA citation. Statute trumps the fishing guides: 1-1-507. State fish. The blackspotted cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, is the official Montana state fish. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Westslope" in 1-1-507 and the Montana Field Guide (not a fishing site) site certainly doesn't say the Westslope subspecies is the state fish. "The Westslope cutthroat trout is one of two subspecies of native cutthroat found in the state. Together, they have been designated Montana's state fish." What is relevant here is thatSalmo clarki not Salmo clarki lewisi is the state fish of which there are two subspecies in the state. Please don't read into the statute something that isn't there.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blackspotted cutthroat IS the westslope cutthroat, the same fish? And the Yellowstone cutthroat is a different subspecies, far more plentiful? (If not, someone needs to also correct the wikipedia article, which says the blackspotted is the westslope, BTW) see this. OK, I could be incorrect on this, but the salmo clarki to clarki shift also has me a bit flummoxed... is there some sort of taxonomy central that shows all this? Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The shift from genus Salmo to genus Oncorhynchus occured in 1988 [2]. Since the MCA 1-1-507 was enacted in 1977 it is correct in referring to the Cutthroat as Salmo clarki. Interestingly enough the common name Black-spotted Cutthroat Trout has never been officially recognized by fish biologists but is derived from the late 19th century use of the common name Black-spotted trout for what was to become known as the Cutthroat. It cannot be found in any of the many global fish databases. In Trout and Salmon of North America, Robert Behnke, (2002) states: "Before 1884, Cutthroat were most commonly referred to in the literature as black-spotted trout, speckled trout or Rocky Mountain trout. The term black-spotted trout continued to be used by fish culturists into the early 1900s." Behnke is one of the most renown authorities on trout and salmon in the world.[3] --Mike Cline (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I fixed the links back to cutthroat, but I am curious that the salmo article says they are Pacific drainage fishes... but the Yellowstone and the Westslope are both cutthroats, so... never mind that, I guess. I suppose someone should suggest they tweak the statute to modern nomenclature, but the legislature just left town, so I guess that sleeping dog shall lie for at least another two years (Mike has a project for the 2015 session, though...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Konik Grammar Fix

Hi,

as I am not a native English speaker, I'd like to ask if the recent grammar fix on the Konik article went as planned:

As it is phenotypically resembles the extinct Tarpan

Sounds a bit strange, but I might be wrong. -- DFoidl (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the "is" should have been removed, making it "As it phenotypically resembles...". Now fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways to fix it, present tense, as above, or "phenotypically resembled" - past tense, either way works. I think I fixed it one way and Dana the other. Ah, I missed the "is" in the fix. Thanks Dana, It's all good Montanabw^(talk) 14:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bazy Tankersley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Pearson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bazy Tankersley

Hello! Your submission of Bazy Tankersley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hybrid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian massacres

I saw that you've attempted to depopulate the category and blank it out - this is not the way we do things. First, we should discuss at the Indigenous page, what should be done with all of these categories. If there is rough agreement to delete Category:Indian massacres, then it should be left intact and nominated for deletion at CFD. Blanking the cat and emptying out of process is not the way to go. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles linked are not appropriate for the category. Blanking was not my concern, having inaccurate categories in the articles in question is. Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm.. I think the scope of the cats for now is pretty clear, I tried to clear up the scope even more. Perhaps we should continue discussing at the indigenous people's project page - removing articles from cats isn't the best way forward IMHO, we should decide in general what to do with these cats - I've added the cats back to a few articles it was removed from, or put in more specific cats as per the definitions currently in place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly that Category:Indian massacres is a potentially racist category name -- perpetuating a stereotype that no amount of article text can redefine or justify. the word "massacre" is also inherently POV and emotional, best avoided save for those specific historical incidents that have the term attached to them. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Outsider looking in, I would tend to agree. Intothatdarkness 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Debate heating up across multiple articles, maybe should HQ at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, which is where I started the convo in the first place... :) -- I'm not sure if it's racist, esp given we have a head article with same name - so the course of action would be to find a way to rename that article first, the category usually follows. And in terms of the content, every article I looked at did have the word "massacre" used by one of the sources. Massacre is not a POV term IMHO any more than genocide is, we have a whole Category:Massacres tree. - but again happy to take this to the wikiproject. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Tried that, I prod tagged the article, (which, by the way, is less than a year old and created by someone who also has a POV problem...) then recommended a merge, both of which were met with hostility. So I summarized my concerns at the project talk and we can debate the tholw thing there. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not English"

Could you take that to the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh CfD, please; it needs to be heard there. "Doesn't belong in Wikipedia" crowd are prejudiced in their views, and any glance at various categories with a few hundred articles in them, major items as well as obscure places....names and language are big politics in Canada; and it comes from both sides, the most-common-name-in-English theme underlay the Haida Gwaii RM and it was official recognition of that name that made it now the norm; for Ninstints and the like, they're at their "English" name; in Haida that's SGang Gwaay with some funny underscores, and on List of Haida villages there are official placenames such as Haina and Kung; same with items in the Nisga'a Treaty and various other agreements in other areas. Xeni Gwet'in Provincial Park and others come to mind, and for Llenlleneyten, who are a Secwepemc-Tshilqot'in band at High Bar, north of Lillooet on the Fraser, there are no alternatives to the native name. I come from a place called Shalalth (Sha-LATH, St'at'imcets spelling Ts'alalh), which is decidedly "not English". The inanity and covert redneckery of that attitude has no place in Canadian geographic or political discourse; this is not just a matter for linguists to pontificate on, decisions like these impact all kinds of subject matter, and the rule-happy crowd have used the "must match main article" ruse to justify the very bad choice of Category:Squamish.....a decision made by someone not familiar with the area, the town, or the people....I'm not sure anyone from BC was in the RM that moved that page, either.....point is the native-name categories exist for practical wiki-reasons as well as representing/reflecting current/modern usage/norms. These "not English" types would delete most of BC's aboriginal articles if they could, I fear. Laxgiibu, Delgamuukw, and probably insist that 'Namgis should be in the archaic "Nimpkish" form (still used on the local river/lake/valley) etc....I guess we should all go back to using "Ceylon" and "Peking" instead of Sri Lanka and Beijing, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

there's apostrophes missing in those redlinks; I'll fix them later; a full list of List of aboriginal place names in British Columbia would be thousands of items long....also List of aboriginal-name articles in British Columbia Wikipedia coverage would add to it considerably. My reason for the St'at'imc and Sto:lo CfDs is because I have dozens of Indian Reserve and some government and location articles to write, and wanted to not have to copy-paste the diacritical-heavy categories each time; ironically given all the brouhaha those will probably pass; Sto:lo has had the least opposition and it's inescapable that that Halqemeylem name is now also a name in English; the Halqemeylem form has all the diacriticals, in English, as with St'at'imc, the diacriticals are omitted; really comical that on Lillooet people one of these linguistics n3rds tried to remove the native name of the language and insisted that it should only show on the language page; but it was the non-diacritical English version of writing "St'at'imcets", not in-the-native-language. Linguists shouldn't be the sole arbiter or ethno articles, that's for damshur; that the Lillooet language article doesn't include a discussion of the name as I supplied last night on the Lilloooet/St'at'imc RM is typical of the narrow coverage that the language articles all currently have; and emblematic of the abysmal lack of knowledge these turkeys have about the subjects they're pontificating about. I actually do articles in these areas, lots of articles, even stubs (most IR stubs and many government articles/categories in BC are all my work....in the hundreds).Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is horse-twaddle, my cites were in my original post, and it's not "some people" I'm waiting to hear back from, it's for media style/pronunciation guides and also official-use sources; BC Names and the Ministry of Forests Library and probably Health and Social Services and Environment/Parks ministries probably have something too......how many cites does it take for this turkey to acknowledge that words he doesn't like are commonplace on the BC geographic and cultural landscape? How much more posturing and taking the high ground on a pile of bullshit is he going to pull? His reply to you above is more of the same; pretentious hot air and "go get me this, I don't have to research/cite anything, I'm a specialist and know my field"....but nothing else, it seems.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

he posted this on his userpage just now right after I reverted/deleted a weasel comment along the same lines on my own talkpage, where he's no longer welcome at all after being a prick on his own the same way. Get a load of this, he's saying I haven't shared them with "us" when I have already in all cases, and this is since I posted THREE pronunciation guides on all the RMs other than the Ktunaxa/Kutenai one where I posted FOUR (since www.ktunaxa.org provided one, which was an obvious place for him to have looked but of course he doesn't have to "disprove" anything.......this posturing is ridiculous and has wasted a lot of my time responding to inane challenge after another, and now in a state of advanced denial of already-provided materials. He has yet to back up ONE of his many claims.Skookum1 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As predicted, he's devalued the cites provided but condescends that one meets his qualifications, and makes another condescension re "injured attitude".....the attitude is all his. Fact of the matter is that your point, and KootenayVolcano's and others about respecting what the people want, and the obvious other proofs all there that Ktunaxa is the more prevalent usage in Canada, is what established "English language usage", not that "only English titles should be on Wikipedia" which as we both know is complete rubbish.Skookum1 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Without doubt, Kwami is a competent linguist, especially his work with the IPA. However, his opinions on ethnolinguistics certainly give me pause. Try to keep your own cred by keeping cool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Kudpung, Skookum1, when there is an edit dispute primarily between two editors, there's a tendency out there to say "a pox on both your houses." Here, you need allies. I'm putting a shoutout in my edit summary should anyone here have an interest in the question of when to use English and when not to. Don't let Kwami bait you into doing anything foolish, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, (and American) so I want to see the appropriate terms and language used, but to all involved as Montana says above its a discussion with two sides. Don't bait and don't let baiting suck anyone in. Stay cool all. Its important for Wikipedia to educate; what has to be decided is what educates and what may possibly perpetuate a inaccuracy.(olive (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC))