This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
change the name of article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.157.197 ( talk) 04:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This page should be renamed/moved to Haida Gwaii. The term Haida Gwaii has been in use for thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankeir ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
haida gwaii only refers to the islands. hence "gwaii". Inforlife ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC) another way of referring to haida gwaii in the old days was inland country (sorry don't have the haida on hand). i would like to add that 'haida gwaii' appears to be just an Anglicization of the old name. for instance haida would be variously xaadagaa or xaadee, probably more conjugations. though there are variations that are indeed different there were also, at least, as many dialects as there were villages. as i said it "appears to be an Anglicization.... but that being said, i have been told that it isn't. dealing with translations, means also dealing with interpretations, and dealing with scholars often means dealing with interpretations of previously made translations. according to Enrico , i believe his translation of the old name was "out of concealment islands" ( please let me check the wording). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforlife ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC) under the heading 'european explorations' the assertion that xaadala gwayee could some how orthographically be attributed to islands on the boundary between worlds, is something that i have a real hard time getting my head around. honestly it sounds like poetic license (and that would confirmed if the source of this were to turn out to be bringhurst). the definition is consistent with the haida world view, haida gwaii resting, as it were, between the sky and sea worlds... but the words just don't add up.... Inforlife ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
skookum, can't say that I'm comfortable with you characterizing my statements as coming out with you against ramurf. honestly i find your remarks inflammatory and not really conducive to a good discussion on the matter. i can see the importance of maintaining the standards of wikipedia and following the correct proceedures, but i don't see where sweeping statements an d the type of heavy handed tactics we see on this pagecould be anything like opening lines of communication. as for not believing in supplanting one name for another for political reasons... that's one i think you should think on. you do seem to be an authority on how Haida feel about their romantic characterization, and how non-haida refer to the islands. that is a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforlife ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) that said i agree that native cultures need to be wary as outsiders come and try to reinvent them according to their values and assumptions. mythology would be a case in point. where many of the (abridged) modern retellings lose the character of the original stories, and supplant it with some pat little lesson, or hammer it into the shape of some familiar fable (not to deny instances of genuine similarity). the sad part comes when young haidas turn to books to learn about their culture and they don't come with a key as to what is real and what is fancy (heaven forbid they should turn to barbeau as source). and of course a by-product of all of this is the notion of the "nobel savage". which as dubious as it may be, has the virtue of holding up the notion of nobility as a standard..............? as for haidas being all mutually hostile. i'm not going to speak to that except to note that there is a record of battles between clans, and why wouldn't those stories stick around. they're good. but they were all Haida. i would venture- a nation of haida. Inforlife ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
i haven't made any edits yet. as you've noted i'm still learning the ropes. the difficulty is in chasing down sources. knowing that i read something somewhere, is a whole different animal than knowing where the heck i read it. for instance i have read that the population estimate was between 10000 and 40000 (opposed to 10 and 60), but i cannot remember where the heck i read it. so i haven't fixed it. i think that the popular guess keeps it down around the 10000 mark. which jives with various correspondences i have had. i have restricted my contribution so far to the discussion page. and actually haven't ventured much outside of this one. my earlier comments were made to be framed in the context of a discussion'.
Well, the BC government did the deed and cut a deal with the Haida to abolish the historic name of the islands and supplant it with the "ethnopolitical one". Waht the date of enactment of the change is wasn't clear from the CBC article, but at some point BCGNIS and CGNDB will have new entries which should be added to the page once they're available; note that the name change actually isn't official until approved in Ottawa (BCGNIS only documents names, CGNDB authorizes them).....many, many pages have to be amended now but as per Black Tusk's observation above it's not sufficient simply to supplant "Queen Charlotte Islands" with "Haida Gwaii" because the former is still the most common usage; "double name" mentions will be needed, i.e. "Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands)" is going to be necessary in many cases, not just "Haida Gwaii"......and for those who think this is about the BC govt recognizing native culture/history for noble reasons, I'm much more cynical - this is about getting the Naikun Wind Farm off the ground and opening the Charlottes to more resource exploitation, except now with teh participation of the Haida government.....what's in a name? Mostly politics...and a whole lot of money. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This naming issue is a classic case for the real problem with Wikipedia. It's not the vandals nor the unreferenced wild ass statements. It's the people with an internet connection and an ax to grind.
Apparently, this renaming issue has gotten up some proud Anglo Canadian wiki editor's noses.
I think most sane people who have no particular interest in the actual renaming issue would have just renamed the stupid article and have been done with it, as I've seen done on numerous occasions in articles on more distant parts of the world when the local government renames part of its territory for cultural reasons. Bombay -> Mumbai, Burma -> Myanmar, etc...
The problem is that 99% people don't really care that much, and so they're not going to raise a stink, while 1% have a bias and care a lot, and they're going to make a lot of noise and get their way.
Do we have to be held hostage to these culture warriors? When does common sense prevail? Harburg ( talk) 01:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
here's an example of a "fix" I had to make to another article, Dixon Entrance, where "culture warriors" from the erase-white-history side deliberately obliterated all mention of the name Queen Charlotte Islands; and also made a false claim that "Seegay" means the Dixon Entrance as such, when in fact it means only "ocean". It's behaviour like this that casts the name-campaign for Haida Gwaii in such discredit; juvenile behaviour and intentional censorship; Wikipedia is about inclusiveness, not soapboxing or using it to force changes on language. That *I* was branded a "culture warrior" for being honest and complete, vs. the linguistic subversion that's too active on the cause of this campaign, is just insulting and also juvenile - and arrogant. I wonder how many other articles have been similarly "washed" of terms and usages which the Haida and their fans want done away with? Skookum1 ( talk) 09:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It would help a lot if someone could show where the islands lie on a larger map. Petethewhistle ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the Strategic Land Use Plan just approved/signed, of which the renaming is one of the clauses/conditions. Probably there are other extensive name changes within it, I'm in no mood to look at all the PDFs, and the linked page hasn't been updated yet. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands is 100000 more common than Haida Gwaii. The policy is to use common names, not official names. I suggest a move to the normal name 'Queen Charlotte Islands'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.183.226 ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that Ottawa recognizes "Haida Gwaii". A statement released on June 17, 2010 by Chuck Strahl of Indian and Northern Affairs said. "I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Haida Nation on the official renaming of the Queen Charlotte Islands located in British Columbia as Haida Gwaii. This is a significant achievement. All those who live and visit the islands will, now and into the future, have a tangible reminder that the Haida Nation is an integral part of the history of the islands. The restoration of the name Haida Gwaii, which means 'Islands of the People,' is of profound importance to the Haida people. The name change is a fitting tribute to the long and rich history of the Haida Nation. It is deeply symbolic of reconciliation between the Haida and the Crown and breathes new life into Haida heritage. Once again, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I extend my sincere congratulations to the Haida Nation for achieving their goal of bringing back the traditional name to the islands. I also commend the British Columbia government for moving forward with the legislation that made this renaming a reality." Let's not kid ourselves: insisting on "Queen Charlotte Islands" is every bit as "POV" as wanting to change to "Haida Gwaii". At least "Haida Gwaii" has the merit of being recognized as official by both the provincial and federal governments, even if BC Ferries for the present is going with both names. As Minister Strahl said, the renaming is a reality. Time for Wikipedia to face it. Scales ( talk) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I am happy to step all over convention. The GNBC web site gives Haida Gwaii as the name of the islands. It gives Queen Charlotte as the name of a land district, a channel, a geographic area and a mountain. Whatever the reasons for the change, the fact is that the name has been changed. Any encyclopedia that is to be taken as credible should reflect facts. The name was "Queen Charlotte Islands". The new name is "Haida Gwaii". The main entry should be named after the official name, a redirect should be set for the old name and a paragraph explaining the change should be included. Why is this complicated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.154.108 ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Blaming this on me is not going to get you anywhere, and I resent that deprecation "Anglo-Canadian" which is somewhat racist as well as highly presumptive and "labelling the enemy" etc. I'm a British Columbian first and foremost, and among those of "my people" (which is all of us, and not white/red/yellow despite the modern fashion to cut us all up that way as if that were politically correct) - among British Columbians I'm one of the most avid supporters of native land claims and know more native history than anybody but most academics, and quite often I know quite a bit more than they do, too. But I'm not speaking in my capacity as a British Columbian, only to aver that accusing is easy, understanding is hard. There's a lot of things in Wikipedia I don't like either but I don't make the rules, and in this case I'm not alone, as an objective review of this page's discussions will show. Wikipedia guidelines are what's at play, like WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSFOLLOW, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and more, and it's time the complainers here acquainted themselves with how Wikipedia works instead of carping on as if the world were out to get you. One Requested Move has failed about this, or rather an RM was held to move it back; I supported it because I know the rules and the whys and wherefores; the BC Government legislating something doesn't make it most-common-use in English, it doesn't make it an automatic standard, Wikipedia is not a platform to push political agendas or to try and promote the use of a term. To date, CGNDB hasn't made any such change, nor has the Brittanica or National Geographic. Wanting something to be accepted and pushing for it to the point of being insulting and deprecating and paranoid are very different things. Is the London Times or any of the Alaska papers, when mentioning the islands, referring to it as Haida Gwaii. ARe fishing-resort ads in the American magazines using "Haida Gwaii" expecting their fishermen-clients to know what that is? Harburg mentioned Burma/Myanmar - and wouldn't you know it there's an example where the officially-proclaimed name is not that of the Wiki article, likewise the official name of Tibet is Xizang but the article is Tibet nonetheless. That has to do with WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME but also WP:POV; as does this. It doesn't help your cause here taht the history of this article, and others related to it, existed at times without any mention of British Columbia or Canada, only that they were islands in the North Pacific, and there were various edits to purge the name British Columbia and/or Canada and also revisions with biased language and misrepresentations of various accusatory kinds; that's both SOAP (soapboxing) and POV. The repeated claim that Haida Gwaii as a name is "ancient" is made over even though it's cited it was coined only in the 1970s or so, though it resembles an older actually-traditional name. Similarly on Dixon Entrance someone had said "its more ancient name is Seegay" as if it were only named in Haida (and not Tlingit or Tsimshian) and as if it "seegay" didn't just mean "the ocean" or "sea". Wanting to get a name changed is one thing, trying to erase history and replace it with fiction is not supportable; and it's that track record and the trigger-happy nature of the way this article was repeatedly name-changed and edited POVishly is long and thorny - and anything but "common sense". If you want, start a new RM, but be advised that Wikipedian logic isn't waht you'd like it to be, and people form all over the world will be taking part, conceivably, and will be more in tune with Wikipedia's rules and decision-making process and what the world standard or English usage is (and why it's not right to think that Wikipedia should/can be used that way, to promote what is effectively a rebranding); I don't WP:OWN this article at all, which is what you're accusing me of; what I hear and see is anything but common sense; adn I see a lot of petulance and nasty comments, and trying to blame it all on one editor. I was going to consult certain Wikiprojects and WP:TITLE's talkpage about this, as you lot are getting tiresome; there are naming conventions in the Indigenous peoples wikiproject and also in WP:CANADA and attempts to make sure sensitivities are covered; but what a small area in Canada wants to call itself and waht teh rest of the world still calls it are two differeent things wiki-wise, and as with Myanmar/Burma and Tibet/Xizang, when there's politics involved, nobody's happy. Spend your lobbying efforts on the editors of the Britannica and World Book and New York Times and so on, which will become reflected here; but soapboxing for Wikipedia to help you spread this name change, that's a different matter and "not what we do here". The violence of some of your comments towards me is really quite nasty and wildly off-base, if you actually knew my personal politics about native land claims and native culture in BC; and labelling me as a white interloper, and an "Anglo-Canadian" which is the gist of what's above, is just rank racism. Around here I'm just a Wikipedian, but if I have an ethnicity it's "British Columbian" and nothing else. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Haida Gwaii →
Queen Charlotte Islands — Although "Haida Gwaii" is the official name recognized by the government of British Columbia, per
WP:COMMONNAME I suggest that this should be moved back. "Queen Charlotte Islands" is overwhelmingly the common name for these islands. It looks to me like the article was moved away from
Queen Charlotte Islands without consensus to do so; certainly it was not as a result of a formal discussion here.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- "river of the white solf", though "white wolf" is a chiefly name, not a direct reference to the animal; Chief Muskaboo was one of those natives who assisted the Collins Overland Telegraph project. For more on Nisga'a names see this section of the GEoBC site where BCGNIS is hosted. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that, for the moment, Queen Charlotte Islands is still the common name. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands → Haida Gwaii — Officially recognized on all levels of government (Provincially via BCGNIS, Federally via CGNDB/ Atlas of Canada, regionally e.g. Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District's webpage, and internationally e.g. GEOnet Names Server) and through services (e.g., BC Ferries map). Other information providers, such as Google Maps and The Canadian Encyclopedia use "Haida Gwaii" as the primary display name. Google News search results indicate that "Haida Gwaii" is more commonly used in English-seeking news media with a ratio of 6:1. Keep in mind the good points in the previous discussion above. Particularly that "Queen Charlotte Islands" is still very common, and the name "Haida Gwaii" is much newer. + m t 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
How are you even supposed to pronounce "Haida Gwaii"? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the outcome of the most recent move proposal, as Mwtoews provided considerable evidence that Haida Gwaii is indeed currently the most common name ( BCGNIS, CGNDB/ Atlas of Canada, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District's webpage, GEOnet Names Server, BC Ferries map, Google Maps, The Canadian Encyclopedia, etc.), and no evidence to the contrary was presented. If not official sources like these, nor popular usage measurements like Google Trends, what metrics should we be monitoring to determine when the move is justified under WP:COMMONNAME?-- Trystan ( talk) 20:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might help to compile everything into a table. Please feel to update/add to it.-- Trystan ( talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Source | Dominant Usage | Notes |
---|---|---|
BC Geographical Names | Haida Gwaii | Indicator of official name. Includes QCI as rescinded. |
Atlas of Canada | Haida Gwaii | Only includes HG for placenames, but QCI dominates historical texts. |
Canadian Geographical Names Service | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as official and QCI as rescinded. |
Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District webpage | Haida Gwaii | Uses HG in all current documents. |
GEOnet Names Server | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as approved and QCI as variant. |
BC Ferries Map | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as primary. |
Google Maps | Haida Gwaii | Labeled as HG, but search for QCI also works. |
Google News Search | Haida Gwaii | HG outnumbers QCI by 114 to 14 (as of June 7, 2011; YMMV), with many of the latter including QCI only as former name. |
Google.ca Search | Haida Gwaii | "HG" outnumbers "QCI" by 3,460,000 to 658,000 (as of June 7, 2011; YMMV). |
Google Trends | Haida Gwaii | HG scores 1.62 to QCI's 1.00 for 2011 (as of May 1, 2011). |
Canadian Encyclopedia | Haida Gwaii | Article for islands is under title HG. |
Encyclopaedia Britannica | Queen Charlotte Islands | Uses QCI only. Their subsidiarity Merriam-Webster Dictionary similarly only has QCI, with no results for HG. |
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia / Encyclopedia Americana | Queen Charlotte Islands | |
Travel.bc.ca | Queen Charlotte Islands | Uses QCI only. Note: according to the Wayback Machine, this website has not been updated since 2 May 2009. |
Queen Charlotte Visitor Centre | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as primary. |
Government of Canada web pages | Haida Gwaii | Google searches within .gc.ca domain. About 2.8 million HG, versus 1.6 million QCI; and most of the first few QCI hits mention HG first. |
CBC | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses Haida Gwaii only, without mentioning QCI. |
Globe & Mail | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses Haida Gwaii only, without mentioning QCI. |
National Post | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses HG primarily in text and for subject tagging, mentions QCI as former name. |
Maclean's | Haida Gwaii | 11 March 2011 article mentions both, while 30 May 2011 article mentions HG only. |
The Queen Charlotte Islands Observer | Haida Gwaii | Local paper from Queen Charlotte. Since the name change has consistently used "Haida Gwaii". |
Canadian Geographic | Haida Gwaii | Canadian magazine uses "Haida Gwaii" for primary name for Article Index with QCI in parenthesis. |
English-language news sources, via Factiva | Haida Gwaii | Search of database for stories since June 1, 2010 returns 117 that use HG and not QCI, 3 that use both (about the name change), and 1 that uses QCI and not HG. Sources covering HG/QCI are primarily major Canadian newspapers, news services, and news websites, with a small amount of international coverage. |
Yahoo! Maps | Queen Charlotte Islands | QCI alone works. A search for "Haida Gwaii" results in map for Nový Bor, Czech Republic. |
Yahoo! Canada Maps | N/A | Both work as search terms. Neither is used to label the islands, in favour of the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District and individual island names. |
Bing Maps | Queen Charlotte Islands | QCI alone works. A search for "Haida Gwaii" yields no results. |
Library of Congress Subject Headings | Haida Gwaii | Changed from QCI to HG in August 2010. |
Dewey Decimal Classification | Haida Gwaii | Changed from QCI to HG in November 2010. |
Various academic journals | Haida Gwaii | A search on Academic Search Complete for peer-reviewed articles published since January 1, 2010, returned 13 on HG/QCI: 7 use HG exclusively, 3 use HG primarily with QCI as the former name, and 3 use QCI only. Journals using HG primarily or exclusively are The Auk, Botany, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Renewable Energy, Ecological Economics, Journal of Religious History, Mortality, Geomorphology, and Molecular Ecology. Journals using QCI exclusively are Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, and Journal of Applied Ichthyology. |
2011 National Geographic Print Atlas | Queen Charlotte Islands | |
WorldCat Library Union Catalog Search | Haida Gwaii | A keyword search for titles published 2010-2011 provides: 42 referring to HG without QCI; 24 referring to both HG and QCI; 17 referring to QCI without HG. |
Google Books Search | Queen Charlotte Islands | Exact phrase search since January 2009 returns 330 books for HG and 478 for QCI. (Search for books published after January 2010 seems to return no hits. No books with 2011 year of publication are listed.) |
Good table, Trystan. I added a row. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Using careful reasoning and analysis? Let's see how that turns out for ya. I'll swing on by again in several months and have a look-see. Harburg ( talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands →
Haida Gwaii – According the the
WP:COMMONNAME policy, an article title should be the term that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language
reliable sources, including major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. Where a name has changed, the policy suggests considering usage since the change.
The Queen Charlotte Islands have officially been renamed to Haida Gwaii. This name change was agreed to in December 2009, and took effect on June 3, 2010 when the enacting legislation received royal assent.
A chart on the article's talk page tracking usage in reliable sources has been collaboratively maintained since May 1, 2011. It demonstrates overwhelming use of Haida Gwaii rather than Queen Charlotte Islands. Major national news outlets have moved to using the current name without mention of the previous name. Encyclopedias, geographic name databases, major English-language classification schemes, and various other sources have adopted the new name. Google Trends indicates that searches for "Haida Gwaii" significantly outnumber searches for "Queen Charlotte Islands." Only Yahoo! Maps, Bing Maps, and a private tourism website were identified as favouring the previous name.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead section of this article reads to me as if it takes the point of view of the Haida Nation against the governments of Canada and the United States. There is a perceptible sense that the US and Canada are alien forces who somehow oppress Haida Gwaii without providing any benefits – as if the right thing to do would be for both Canada and the US to cede sovereignty over all the territory the Haida Nation claims to that nation and end all involvement in its affairs. In fact, the following passage is not particularly subtle in making that point:
... the U.S. state of Alaska is to the north, across a marine border Dixon Entrance disputed by two Nation state claimants, Canada and the USA. Haida territories, continuously occupied before Canada or USA claims, include lands and waters on both side of this political disagreement. There is no evidence of a free informed prior legal transfer of competence over these territories from the Indigenous Peoples to either Nation state.
A more balanced article would tell about what benefits the people of these islands receive in return for submission to these two foreign powers. If they receive no benefits, and if the only result of being part of Canada and the US is oppression, then that point should be made more clearly and with reliable sources to support it.
I personally have no stake or even great interest in this specific issue, and my feelings about it are not strong enough to move me to mark the article with any sort of POV tag; but I do feel that I should express how the article reads to me for the possible benefit of editors who are involved in maintaining it.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit re-replaces the phrase "formerly the Queen Charlotte Islands," with "more commonly the Queen Charlotte Islands," in the lede sentence. That QCI remains a common name is not disputed, but the available sources strongly indicate it is not a more common name than Haida Gwaii. [6] Certainly the citation currently in the lede sentence does not support the current phrasing. My preference is the long-standing version using "formerly," but I would be open to any wording that doesn't make any uncited claims about the relative usage of the two names; "...also commonly referred to by its former official name..." seems a bit clunky, though.-- Trystan ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
What I had in mind won't work because of the way the opening paragraph is worded; I was going to put something like "Haida Gwaii, until xxxx year formerly officially, and still commonly known as, the Queen Charlotte Islands, also known as "the Charlottes" (easy to cite)" or some other compromise of that kind, is the way to go. Attempts to try to use this article as a stump for the rebranding and discredit the old name are a no-go and highly POV and not what Wikipedia is or should allow itself to be used for; there were long edit wars about this before the name change was official and enough media and other citations emerged to validate changing the name. And some one of those edits back at that link quoted at the opening of this section presumed to say that there were 'enough' cites that use Haida Gwaii to validate discontinuing to use the old one, even discrediting the old name; said editor claimed that there were not enough citations to warrant leaving the old one in use; some long ago tried to eradicate it entirely..... WP:SOAPBOX combined with violations of WP:COI and WP:AUTO.....the "old" name remains in wide use in global English, media and academia as well as travel and popular speech....and Haida Gwaii is not the name in many languages.......(German has adopted it now, I believe, at least Germans heading there....). "formerly and still commonly named as" is the format, and the emphasis is that this name was official...and still occurs in the name of the regional district, the local faultline, various geological formations etc etc etc. etc...and the Haida language pronunciation of Haida Gwaii belongs here, not just the English one (which I have a problem with the IPA for, because it doesn't represent American or Aussie or British English, nor even some CAnadian English; but that's a general across-the-board problem with Canadian names (Americans habitually say "Frazhier River" despite the "Fraser" spelling, for example.....I'm fresh back here, can't believe this is 'still' be argued about......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 ( talk • contribs)
Snowfall is generally moderate, averaging from 10 centimetres (3.9 in) to 70 centimetres (28 in), though at northerly Langara Island it averages around 100 centimetres (39 in).
Given the mild climate of the islands, I don't doubt the existence of such a place, however, I would like to see records validating this. -- UkrainianAmerican ( talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The statement that "The 2013 salmon runs defied all expectations..." strongly implies that this is because of the iron that was put into the ocean. This has not been suggested by any reliable source. Given the salmon lifecycle, it does not make sense for the 2013 salmon run to be affected by a deposit of iron in 2012.
One could also add a statement that "in 2013-2014, the levels of PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning) Haida Gwaii defied all expectations." (PSP is caused by a dinoflagellate that would probably benefit from increased iron).
Given the lack of any experimental design, it does not seem possible for anything to be linked to the iron depositing, either positive of negative. My suggestion is to just remove the statement about salmon returns.
On a related note, I think that the title "Ocean fertilization experiment" is quite misleading. It implies that the event in question was an experiment, and that it fertilized the ocean. Both of these points are very contentious. This title therefore gives undue weight to a single point of view. It could just as easily be referred to as the "illegal iron dumping of 2012". I tried to think of a more balanced title. Perhaps "2012 controversy around depositing iron in the ocean"? I realize that it sounds kind of goofy, but at least it doesn't strongly support one point of view. Any suggestions would be welcome. Millifolium ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Haida Gwaii. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Haida Gwaii. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm moving this fragment here until it can be reinserted in a way that is more complete and clear. Removed bit:
The source appears to be subscription-based, so I'm not able to check what the intended meaning was here. The potlatch custom is common throughout many native cultures, and Hopi is a different language family from Haida, so the connection isn't clear from the fragment. Thanks! — Henry chianski ( talk) 01:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I have changed a reference to the islands being called Queen Charlotte Islands to remove the word briefly and inserted the start and end date for the term. I think we can leave it to the readers to determine for themselves whether this constitutes a brief period of time. -- Wilson ( talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
change the name of article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.157.197 ( talk) 04:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This page should be renamed/moved to Haida Gwaii. The term Haida Gwaii has been in use for thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankeir ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
haida gwaii only refers to the islands. hence "gwaii". Inforlife ( talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC) another way of referring to haida gwaii in the old days was inland country (sorry don't have the haida on hand). i would like to add that 'haida gwaii' appears to be just an Anglicization of the old name. for instance haida would be variously xaadagaa or xaadee, probably more conjugations. though there are variations that are indeed different there were also, at least, as many dialects as there were villages. as i said it "appears to be an Anglicization.... but that being said, i have been told that it isn't. dealing with translations, means also dealing with interpretations, and dealing with scholars often means dealing with interpretations of previously made translations. according to Enrico , i believe his translation of the old name was "out of concealment islands" ( please let me check the wording). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforlife ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC) under the heading 'european explorations' the assertion that xaadala gwayee could some how orthographically be attributed to islands on the boundary between worlds, is something that i have a real hard time getting my head around. honestly it sounds like poetic license (and that would confirmed if the source of this were to turn out to be bringhurst). the definition is consistent with the haida world view, haida gwaii resting, as it were, between the sky and sea worlds... but the words just don't add up.... Inforlife ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
skookum, can't say that I'm comfortable with you characterizing my statements as coming out with you against ramurf. honestly i find your remarks inflammatory and not really conducive to a good discussion on the matter. i can see the importance of maintaining the standards of wikipedia and following the correct proceedures, but i don't see where sweeping statements an d the type of heavy handed tactics we see on this pagecould be anything like opening lines of communication. as for not believing in supplanting one name for another for political reasons... that's one i think you should think on. you do seem to be an authority on how Haida feel about their romantic characterization, and how non-haida refer to the islands. that is a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inforlife ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) that said i agree that native cultures need to be wary as outsiders come and try to reinvent them according to their values and assumptions. mythology would be a case in point. where many of the (abridged) modern retellings lose the character of the original stories, and supplant it with some pat little lesson, or hammer it into the shape of some familiar fable (not to deny instances of genuine similarity). the sad part comes when young haidas turn to books to learn about their culture and they don't come with a key as to what is real and what is fancy (heaven forbid they should turn to barbeau as source). and of course a by-product of all of this is the notion of the "nobel savage". which as dubious as it may be, has the virtue of holding up the notion of nobility as a standard..............? as for haidas being all mutually hostile. i'm not going to speak to that except to note that there is a record of battles between clans, and why wouldn't those stories stick around. they're good. but they were all Haida. i would venture- a nation of haida. Inforlife ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
i haven't made any edits yet. as you've noted i'm still learning the ropes. the difficulty is in chasing down sources. knowing that i read something somewhere, is a whole different animal than knowing where the heck i read it. for instance i have read that the population estimate was between 10000 and 40000 (opposed to 10 and 60), but i cannot remember where the heck i read it. so i haven't fixed it. i think that the popular guess keeps it down around the 10000 mark. which jives with various correspondences i have had. i have restricted my contribution so far to the discussion page. and actually haven't ventured much outside of this one. my earlier comments were made to be framed in the context of a discussion'.
Well, the BC government did the deed and cut a deal with the Haida to abolish the historic name of the islands and supplant it with the "ethnopolitical one". Waht the date of enactment of the change is wasn't clear from the CBC article, but at some point BCGNIS and CGNDB will have new entries which should be added to the page once they're available; note that the name change actually isn't official until approved in Ottawa (BCGNIS only documents names, CGNDB authorizes them).....many, many pages have to be amended now but as per Black Tusk's observation above it's not sufficient simply to supplant "Queen Charlotte Islands" with "Haida Gwaii" because the former is still the most common usage; "double name" mentions will be needed, i.e. "Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands)" is going to be necessary in many cases, not just "Haida Gwaii"......and for those who think this is about the BC govt recognizing native culture/history for noble reasons, I'm much more cynical - this is about getting the Naikun Wind Farm off the ground and opening the Charlottes to more resource exploitation, except now with teh participation of the Haida government.....what's in a name? Mostly politics...and a whole lot of money. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This naming issue is a classic case for the real problem with Wikipedia. It's not the vandals nor the unreferenced wild ass statements. It's the people with an internet connection and an ax to grind.
Apparently, this renaming issue has gotten up some proud Anglo Canadian wiki editor's noses.
I think most sane people who have no particular interest in the actual renaming issue would have just renamed the stupid article and have been done with it, as I've seen done on numerous occasions in articles on more distant parts of the world when the local government renames part of its territory for cultural reasons. Bombay -> Mumbai, Burma -> Myanmar, etc...
The problem is that 99% people don't really care that much, and so they're not going to raise a stink, while 1% have a bias and care a lot, and they're going to make a lot of noise and get their way.
Do we have to be held hostage to these culture warriors? When does common sense prevail? Harburg ( talk) 01:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
here's an example of a "fix" I had to make to another article, Dixon Entrance, where "culture warriors" from the erase-white-history side deliberately obliterated all mention of the name Queen Charlotte Islands; and also made a false claim that "Seegay" means the Dixon Entrance as such, when in fact it means only "ocean". It's behaviour like this that casts the name-campaign for Haida Gwaii in such discredit; juvenile behaviour and intentional censorship; Wikipedia is about inclusiveness, not soapboxing or using it to force changes on language. That *I* was branded a "culture warrior" for being honest and complete, vs. the linguistic subversion that's too active on the cause of this campaign, is just insulting and also juvenile - and arrogant. I wonder how many other articles have been similarly "washed" of terms and usages which the Haida and their fans want done away with? Skookum1 ( talk) 09:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It would help a lot if someone could show where the islands lie on a larger map. Petethewhistle ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the Strategic Land Use Plan just approved/signed, of which the renaming is one of the clauses/conditions. Probably there are other extensive name changes within it, I'm in no mood to look at all the PDFs, and the linked page hasn't been updated yet. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands is 100000 more common than Haida Gwaii. The policy is to use common names, not official names. I suggest a move to the normal name 'Queen Charlotte Islands'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.183.226 ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that Ottawa recognizes "Haida Gwaii". A statement released on June 17, 2010 by Chuck Strahl of Indian and Northern Affairs said. "I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Haida Nation on the official renaming of the Queen Charlotte Islands located in British Columbia as Haida Gwaii. This is a significant achievement. All those who live and visit the islands will, now and into the future, have a tangible reminder that the Haida Nation is an integral part of the history of the islands. The restoration of the name Haida Gwaii, which means 'Islands of the People,' is of profound importance to the Haida people. The name change is a fitting tribute to the long and rich history of the Haida Nation. It is deeply symbolic of reconciliation between the Haida and the Crown and breathes new life into Haida heritage. Once again, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I extend my sincere congratulations to the Haida Nation for achieving their goal of bringing back the traditional name to the islands. I also commend the British Columbia government for moving forward with the legislation that made this renaming a reality." Let's not kid ourselves: insisting on "Queen Charlotte Islands" is every bit as "POV" as wanting to change to "Haida Gwaii". At least "Haida Gwaii" has the merit of being recognized as official by both the provincial and federal governments, even if BC Ferries for the present is going with both names. As Minister Strahl said, the renaming is a reality. Time for Wikipedia to face it. Scales ( talk) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I am happy to step all over convention. The GNBC web site gives Haida Gwaii as the name of the islands. It gives Queen Charlotte as the name of a land district, a channel, a geographic area and a mountain. Whatever the reasons for the change, the fact is that the name has been changed. Any encyclopedia that is to be taken as credible should reflect facts. The name was "Queen Charlotte Islands". The new name is "Haida Gwaii". The main entry should be named after the official name, a redirect should be set for the old name and a paragraph explaining the change should be included. Why is this complicated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.154.108 ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Blaming this on me is not going to get you anywhere, and I resent that deprecation "Anglo-Canadian" which is somewhat racist as well as highly presumptive and "labelling the enemy" etc. I'm a British Columbian first and foremost, and among those of "my people" (which is all of us, and not white/red/yellow despite the modern fashion to cut us all up that way as if that were politically correct) - among British Columbians I'm one of the most avid supporters of native land claims and know more native history than anybody but most academics, and quite often I know quite a bit more than they do, too. But I'm not speaking in my capacity as a British Columbian, only to aver that accusing is easy, understanding is hard. There's a lot of things in Wikipedia I don't like either but I don't make the rules, and in this case I'm not alone, as an objective review of this page's discussions will show. Wikipedia guidelines are what's at play, like WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSFOLLOW, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and more, and it's time the complainers here acquainted themselves with how Wikipedia works instead of carping on as if the world were out to get you. One Requested Move has failed about this, or rather an RM was held to move it back; I supported it because I know the rules and the whys and wherefores; the BC Government legislating something doesn't make it most-common-use in English, it doesn't make it an automatic standard, Wikipedia is not a platform to push political agendas or to try and promote the use of a term. To date, CGNDB hasn't made any such change, nor has the Brittanica or National Geographic. Wanting something to be accepted and pushing for it to the point of being insulting and deprecating and paranoid are very different things. Is the London Times or any of the Alaska papers, when mentioning the islands, referring to it as Haida Gwaii. ARe fishing-resort ads in the American magazines using "Haida Gwaii" expecting their fishermen-clients to know what that is? Harburg mentioned Burma/Myanmar - and wouldn't you know it there's an example where the officially-proclaimed name is not that of the Wiki article, likewise the official name of Tibet is Xizang but the article is Tibet nonetheless. That has to do with WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME but also WP:POV; as does this. It doesn't help your cause here taht the history of this article, and others related to it, existed at times without any mention of British Columbia or Canada, only that they were islands in the North Pacific, and there were various edits to purge the name British Columbia and/or Canada and also revisions with biased language and misrepresentations of various accusatory kinds; that's both SOAP (soapboxing) and POV. The repeated claim that Haida Gwaii as a name is "ancient" is made over even though it's cited it was coined only in the 1970s or so, though it resembles an older actually-traditional name. Similarly on Dixon Entrance someone had said "its more ancient name is Seegay" as if it were only named in Haida (and not Tlingit or Tsimshian) and as if it "seegay" didn't just mean "the ocean" or "sea". Wanting to get a name changed is one thing, trying to erase history and replace it with fiction is not supportable; and it's that track record and the trigger-happy nature of the way this article was repeatedly name-changed and edited POVishly is long and thorny - and anything but "common sense". If you want, start a new RM, but be advised that Wikipedian logic isn't waht you'd like it to be, and people form all over the world will be taking part, conceivably, and will be more in tune with Wikipedia's rules and decision-making process and what the world standard or English usage is (and why it's not right to think that Wikipedia should/can be used that way, to promote what is effectively a rebranding); I don't WP:OWN this article at all, which is what you're accusing me of; what I hear and see is anything but common sense; adn I see a lot of petulance and nasty comments, and trying to blame it all on one editor. I was going to consult certain Wikiprojects and WP:TITLE's talkpage about this, as you lot are getting tiresome; there are naming conventions in the Indigenous peoples wikiproject and also in WP:CANADA and attempts to make sure sensitivities are covered; but what a small area in Canada wants to call itself and waht teh rest of the world still calls it are two differeent things wiki-wise, and as with Myanmar/Burma and Tibet/Xizang, when there's politics involved, nobody's happy. Spend your lobbying efforts on the editors of the Britannica and World Book and New York Times and so on, which will become reflected here; but soapboxing for Wikipedia to help you spread this name change, that's a different matter and "not what we do here". The violence of some of your comments towards me is really quite nasty and wildly off-base, if you actually knew my personal politics about native land claims and native culture in BC; and labelling me as a white interloper, and an "Anglo-Canadian" which is the gist of what's above, is just rank racism. Around here I'm just a Wikipedian, but if I have an ethnicity it's "British Columbian" and nothing else. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Haida Gwaii →
Queen Charlotte Islands — Although "Haida Gwaii" is the official name recognized by the government of British Columbia, per
WP:COMMONNAME I suggest that this should be moved back. "Queen Charlotte Islands" is overwhelmingly the common name for these islands. It looks to me like the article was moved away from
Queen Charlotte Islands without consensus to do so; certainly it was not as a result of a formal discussion here.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- "river of the white solf", though "white wolf" is a chiefly name, not a direct reference to the animal; Chief Muskaboo was one of those natives who assisted the Collins Overland Telegraph project. For more on Nisga'a names see this section of the GEoBC site where BCGNIS is hosted. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that, for the moment, Queen Charlotte Islands is still the common name. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands → Haida Gwaii — Officially recognized on all levels of government (Provincially via BCGNIS, Federally via CGNDB/ Atlas of Canada, regionally e.g. Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District's webpage, and internationally e.g. GEOnet Names Server) and through services (e.g., BC Ferries map). Other information providers, such as Google Maps and The Canadian Encyclopedia use "Haida Gwaii" as the primary display name. Google News search results indicate that "Haida Gwaii" is more commonly used in English-seeking news media with a ratio of 6:1. Keep in mind the good points in the previous discussion above. Particularly that "Queen Charlotte Islands" is still very common, and the name "Haida Gwaii" is much newer. + m t 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
How are you even supposed to pronounce "Haida Gwaii"? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the outcome of the most recent move proposal, as Mwtoews provided considerable evidence that Haida Gwaii is indeed currently the most common name ( BCGNIS, CGNDB/ Atlas of Canada, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District's webpage, GEOnet Names Server, BC Ferries map, Google Maps, The Canadian Encyclopedia, etc.), and no evidence to the contrary was presented. If not official sources like these, nor popular usage measurements like Google Trends, what metrics should we be monitoring to determine when the move is justified under WP:COMMONNAME?-- Trystan ( talk) 20:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might help to compile everything into a table. Please feel to update/add to it.-- Trystan ( talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Source | Dominant Usage | Notes |
---|---|---|
BC Geographical Names | Haida Gwaii | Indicator of official name. Includes QCI as rescinded. |
Atlas of Canada | Haida Gwaii | Only includes HG for placenames, but QCI dominates historical texts. |
Canadian Geographical Names Service | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as official and QCI as rescinded. |
Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District webpage | Haida Gwaii | Uses HG in all current documents. |
GEOnet Names Server | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as approved and QCI as variant. |
BC Ferries Map | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as primary. |
Google Maps | Haida Gwaii | Labeled as HG, but search for QCI also works. |
Google News Search | Haida Gwaii | HG outnumbers QCI by 114 to 14 (as of June 7, 2011; YMMV), with many of the latter including QCI only as former name. |
Google.ca Search | Haida Gwaii | "HG" outnumbers "QCI" by 3,460,000 to 658,000 (as of June 7, 2011; YMMV). |
Google Trends | Haida Gwaii | HG scores 1.62 to QCI's 1.00 for 2011 (as of May 1, 2011). |
Canadian Encyclopedia | Haida Gwaii | Article for islands is under title HG. |
Encyclopaedia Britannica | Queen Charlotte Islands | Uses QCI only. Their subsidiarity Merriam-Webster Dictionary similarly only has QCI, with no results for HG. |
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia / Encyclopedia Americana | Queen Charlotte Islands | |
Travel.bc.ca | Queen Charlotte Islands | Uses QCI only. Note: according to the Wayback Machine, this website has not been updated since 2 May 2009. |
Queen Charlotte Visitor Centre | Haida Gwaii | Includes both, with HG as primary. |
Government of Canada web pages | Haida Gwaii | Google searches within .gc.ca domain. About 2.8 million HG, versus 1.6 million QCI; and most of the first few QCI hits mention HG first. |
CBC | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses Haida Gwaii only, without mentioning QCI. |
Globe & Mail | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses Haida Gwaii only, without mentioning QCI. |
National Post | Haida Gwaii | Recent story uses HG primarily in text and for subject tagging, mentions QCI as former name. |
Maclean's | Haida Gwaii | 11 March 2011 article mentions both, while 30 May 2011 article mentions HG only. |
The Queen Charlotte Islands Observer | Haida Gwaii | Local paper from Queen Charlotte. Since the name change has consistently used "Haida Gwaii". |
Canadian Geographic | Haida Gwaii | Canadian magazine uses "Haida Gwaii" for primary name for Article Index with QCI in parenthesis. |
English-language news sources, via Factiva | Haida Gwaii | Search of database for stories since June 1, 2010 returns 117 that use HG and not QCI, 3 that use both (about the name change), and 1 that uses QCI and not HG. Sources covering HG/QCI are primarily major Canadian newspapers, news services, and news websites, with a small amount of international coverage. |
Yahoo! Maps | Queen Charlotte Islands | QCI alone works. A search for "Haida Gwaii" results in map for Nový Bor, Czech Republic. |
Yahoo! Canada Maps | N/A | Both work as search terms. Neither is used to label the islands, in favour of the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District and individual island names. |
Bing Maps | Queen Charlotte Islands | QCI alone works. A search for "Haida Gwaii" yields no results. |
Library of Congress Subject Headings | Haida Gwaii | Changed from QCI to HG in August 2010. |
Dewey Decimal Classification | Haida Gwaii | Changed from QCI to HG in November 2010. |
Various academic journals | Haida Gwaii | A search on Academic Search Complete for peer-reviewed articles published since January 1, 2010, returned 13 on HG/QCI: 7 use HG exclusively, 3 use HG primarily with QCI as the former name, and 3 use QCI only. Journals using HG primarily or exclusively are The Auk, Botany, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Renewable Energy, Ecological Economics, Journal of Religious History, Mortality, Geomorphology, and Molecular Ecology. Journals using QCI exclusively are Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, and Journal of Applied Ichthyology. |
2011 National Geographic Print Atlas | Queen Charlotte Islands | |
WorldCat Library Union Catalog Search | Haida Gwaii | A keyword search for titles published 2010-2011 provides: 42 referring to HG without QCI; 24 referring to both HG and QCI; 17 referring to QCI without HG. |
Google Books Search | Queen Charlotte Islands | Exact phrase search since January 2009 returns 330 books for HG and 478 for QCI. (Search for books published after January 2010 seems to return no hits. No books with 2011 year of publication are listed.) |
Good table, Trystan. I added a row. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Using careful reasoning and analysis? Let's see how that turns out for ya. I'll swing on by again in several months and have a look-see. Harburg ( talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Queen Charlotte Islands →
Haida Gwaii – According the the
WP:COMMONNAME policy, an article title should be the term that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language
reliable sources, including major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. Where a name has changed, the policy suggests considering usage since the change.
The Queen Charlotte Islands have officially been renamed to Haida Gwaii. This name change was agreed to in December 2009, and took effect on June 3, 2010 when the enacting legislation received royal assent.
A chart on the article's talk page tracking usage in reliable sources has been collaboratively maintained since May 1, 2011. It demonstrates overwhelming use of Haida Gwaii rather than Queen Charlotte Islands. Major national news outlets have moved to using the current name without mention of the previous name. Encyclopedias, geographic name databases, major English-language classification schemes, and various other sources have adopted the new name. Google Trends indicates that searches for "Haida Gwaii" significantly outnumber searches for "Queen Charlotte Islands." Only Yahoo! Maps, Bing Maps, and a private tourism website were identified as favouring the previous name.-- Trystan ( talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The lead section of this article reads to me as if it takes the point of view of the Haida Nation against the governments of Canada and the United States. There is a perceptible sense that the US and Canada are alien forces who somehow oppress Haida Gwaii without providing any benefits – as if the right thing to do would be for both Canada and the US to cede sovereignty over all the territory the Haida Nation claims to that nation and end all involvement in its affairs. In fact, the following passage is not particularly subtle in making that point:
... the U.S. state of Alaska is to the north, across a marine border Dixon Entrance disputed by two Nation state claimants, Canada and the USA. Haida territories, continuously occupied before Canada or USA claims, include lands and waters on both side of this political disagreement. There is no evidence of a free informed prior legal transfer of competence over these territories from the Indigenous Peoples to either Nation state.
A more balanced article would tell about what benefits the people of these islands receive in return for submission to these two foreign powers. If they receive no benefits, and if the only result of being part of Canada and the US is oppression, then that point should be made more clearly and with reliable sources to support it.
I personally have no stake or even great interest in this specific issue, and my feelings about it are not strong enough to move me to mark the article with any sort of POV tag; but I do feel that I should express how the article reads to me for the possible benefit of editors who are involved in maintaining it.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit re-replaces the phrase "formerly the Queen Charlotte Islands," with "more commonly the Queen Charlotte Islands," in the lede sentence. That QCI remains a common name is not disputed, but the available sources strongly indicate it is not a more common name than Haida Gwaii. [6] Certainly the citation currently in the lede sentence does not support the current phrasing. My preference is the long-standing version using "formerly," but I would be open to any wording that doesn't make any uncited claims about the relative usage of the two names; "...also commonly referred to by its former official name..." seems a bit clunky, though.-- Trystan ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
What I had in mind won't work because of the way the opening paragraph is worded; I was going to put something like "Haida Gwaii, until xxxx year formerly officially, and still commonly known as, the Queen Charlotte Islands, also known as "the Charlottes" (easy to cite)" or some other compromise of that kind, is the way to go. Attempts to try to use this article as a stump for the rebranding and discredit the old name are a no-go and highly POV and not what Wikipedia is or should allow itself to be used for; there were long edit wars about this before the name change was official and enough media and other citations emerged to validate changing the name. And some one of those edits back at that link quoted at the opening of this section presumed to say that there were 'enough' cites that use Haida Gwaii to validate discontinuing to use the old one, even discrediting the old name; said editor claimed that there were not enough citations to warrant leaving the old one in use; some long ago tried to eradicate it entirely..... WP:SOAPBOX combined with violations of WP:COI and WP:AUTO.....the "old" name remains in wide use in global English, media and academia as well as travel and popular speech....and Haida Gwaii is not the name in many languages.......(German has adopted it now, I believe, at least Germans heading there....). "formerly and still commonly named as" is the format, and the emphasis is that this name was official...and still occurs in the name of the regional district, the local faultline, various geological formations etc etc etc. etc...and the Haida language pronunciation of Haida Gwaii belongs here, not just the English one (which I have a problem with the IPA for, because it doesn't represent American or Aussie or British English, nor even some CAnadian English; but that's a general across-the-board problem with Canadian names (Americans habitually say "Frazhier River" despite the "Fraser" spelling, for example.....I'm fresh back here, can't believe this is 'still' be argued about......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 ( talk • contribs)
Snowfall is generally moderate, averaging from 10 centimetres (3.9 in) to 70 centimetres (28 in), though at northerly Langara Island it averages around 100 centimetres (39 in).
Given the mild climate of the islands, I don't doubt the existence of such a place, however, I would like to see records validating this. -- UkrainianAmerican ( talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The statement that "The 2013 salmon runs defied all expectations..." strongly implies that this is because of the iron that was put into the ocean. This has not been suggested by any reliable source. Given the salmon lifecycle, it does not make sense for the 2013 salmon run to be affected by a deposit of iron in 2012.
One could also add a statement that "in 2013-2014, the levels of PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning) Haida Gwaii defied all expectations." (PSP is caused by a dinoflagellate that would probably benefit from increased iron).
Given the lack of any experimental design, it does not seem possible for anything to be linked to the iron depositing, either positive of negative. My suggestion is to just remove the statement about salmon returns.
On a related note, I think that the title "Ocean fertilization experiment" is quite misleading. It implies that the event in question was an experiment, and that it fertilized the ocean. Both of these points are very contentious. This title therefore gives undue weight to a single point of view. It could just as easily be referred to as the "illegal iron dumping of 2012". I tried to think of a more balanced title. Perhaps "2012 controversy around depositing iron in the ocean"? I realize that it sounds kind of goofy, but at least it doesn't strongly support one point of view. Any suggestions would be welcome. Millifolium ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Haida Gwaii. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Haida Gwaii. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm moving this fragment here until it can be reinserted in a way that is more complete and clear. Removed bit:
The source appears to be subscription-based, so I'm not able to check what the intended meaning was here. The potlatch custom is common throughout many native cultures, and Hopi is a different language family from Haida, so the connection isn't clear from the fragment. Thanks! — Henry chianski ( talk) 01:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
References
I have changed a reference to the islands being called Queen Charlotte Islands to remove the word briefly and inserted the start and end date for the term. I think we can leave it to the readers to determine for themselves whether this constitutes a brief period of time. -- Wilson ( talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)