Talk:Squamish people

3115:

substantial, painful aspect of the Squamish history is the forced unsettlement of their land by the Canadian government, this was glossed over in the "European colonization and the Indian Reserves" section. There is just one small portion that discusses how lands were "sold away" both "legally and illegally". The section also cites one specific instance but sums it up in one sentence by saying "families were forced into leaving". Here, I think it would be helpful instead to elaborate on how the Squamish people were unsettled. For example, one piece by Jean Barman goes in-depth into a particular instance where premier Richard McBride pushed the Squamish people out of their homes by citing the 1911 Amendment to the Indian Act which allowed the government to remove Indigenous People from reserves without their consent (Barman, Jean). When the Squamish were forced out, the government burned down the homes there. Stories such as this are extremely important in understanding the Squamish history and Canada's place in it. Another edit that could help would be adding some more pictures of modern-day Squamish people. For example, pictures of Squamish people playing lacrosse or at city hall? Although it is important to showcase the Squamish people in their cultural attire and through historical pictures, it is also important to showcase a modern-day Squamish. This is because depicting every Indigenous person as a warrior ensures that we continually paint them in that light, exclusively. Lastly, I think adding a section about sports would be extremely valuable. The Squamish people have strong ties to canoeing and lacrosse, which many people are unaware of. In fact, the Squamish people have played lacrosse in "pre-contact" times (Teiontsikwaeks). It is important to show that the Squamish were their own people with their own games and sports and that they introduced these to the colonists, not the other way around. Being wary of not accepting the European colonial version of history is crucial I think making the aforementioned edits would help bolster the article as a whole and allow it to represent the views of the Squamish equally.

2321:. It was because this main article was so rashly and rudely moved that the category was speedied (within hours...perhaps immediately, I didn't look close) and that defenders of "English" have been fighting tooth and nail to obstruct the return of the title to its original state, as "owned" by its creator and principal author and which was stable for years until the previous RM. So who's owning what? Those who mostly run around Knowledge articles invoking guidelines like Holy Writ, and who don't care about the consequences or the import or have any respect for an expert author and a highly visible convention, or those who are trying to keep some sanity to indigenous categories and article titles so that they aren't run roughshod by the half-educated-though-guideline-equipped. Guidelines are not rules, and even "policy" can have exceptions; and the Fifth Pillar is the Big Exception, and was invoked here for good reason; instead of arguing why this change is a bad thing and mandating that Knowledge should resist change by invoking "MOSTCOMMON" citations using the overwhelming preponderance of the archaic names, or respect such change; and also in terms of BLP show some deference to what a modern people choose to call themselves and why they call themselves that (to distinguish themselves from the town, and from the English name of their "Indian Act government" (as OMR calls it) which is not the same thing as 2442:. As noted above this RM was launched because of the emergmence, slowly, of a consensus at the CfD that "Skwxwu7mesh" has a case; and is in fact growing in currency though is not as well established as Tsleil-waututh, Sto:lo, St'at'imc, Tshilqot'in etc.....the imposition of COMMONNAME as if all that mattered here without regard to the convention very clear elsewhere means that this article (and the category) would be an exception to a very beneficial convention. A very beneficial convention that also avoided the namespace collision with important local geography. Because let me assure you, the COMMONNAME most often referred to by "Squamish" is the town, not the people....it's funny how much COMMONNAME is invoked by people who don't "get" that....and how all the other parallel articles and their titles are disregarded - or perhaps under threat? - by making COMMONNAME some kind of holy icon. There are more issues here than just that; but I guess if someone wants to find blinkers to wear, they will cinch them on tight... 1710:(4) Consensus is emerging (thank God) to move the category back to something easily distinguishable from the town or other uses; naming a main article after a category isn't in the rule book (and really naming a category after a main article isn't a hard and fast rule either, but gets used as if it were...with unpleasant and confusing consequences, as in this case) but if indigenous nomenclature wins there, there is no reason to resist here, especially given the short-time closure of the last RM and that, within it, it's even said that the decision has to respect the wishes/intent of those who created and built the article, namely OldManRivers and myself, because we weren't around anymore and therefore our opinions/preferences don't matter. MOS now says otherwise, and I have in fact this morning alerted OldManRivers to the CfD and the RM at 716:

Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" side felt strongly about it and inferred it was symbol of repairing some of the past wrongs done to the indigenous peoples and that it would be politically and culturally insensitive to spell it "Squamish". However, this doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to disagree with that decision or change the name of the article to fit with Knowledge's policy. This is the English language Knowledge and article names are supposed to be in English, (even the text of articles is supposed to be in English). I was trying to be sensitive by asking here whether there was anyone who currently objected to the article name being changed to "Squamish", but as of yet no one has voiced any arguments as to why the current title should stand. So, is there a procedure by which we have to apply in order to have the article title changed?

2039:

with the Skwxwu7mesh as a people. There are various exceptions and interpretations in UE and in MOS about romanization and more; but it always boils down to someone saying "it's not English". Well, neither, and very pointedly, is "Squamish"...and the presence of that spelling as a common name on the local geography is NOT relevant to the name to be used for the people, and saying "we don't care what they prefer to call themselves" is if you stop and think about it a BLP violation. Why shouldn't we care? Who are we to say different? Who are you, if you've never been to Squamish and never met a Skwxwu7mesh person, to say it's not an English word. The Olympic organization used it, academia in BC use it, the Squamish Nation and the Howe Sound school board use it.

1823:, which had to be copy pasted for use because of the complexity of the diacriticals and various special characters. "St'at'imc" and "Sto:lo" occur in English regularly - but not with all the diacriticals; in the Sto:lo case it's also a bit political as the heavily-diacriticalized form is used and promoted by one of the two tribal councils but expressly not by the other; I don't know how the independent bands use it, but most likely without the diacriticals as most Sto:lo don't speak Halqemeylem. If it's a matter of respecting the original creator's choice, then I'm OK with the diacriticalized version if need be, I just think the undiacriticalized version is (a) how it's used in English, when it 2305:(not you I know); there is nothing wrong with standing up not just for convention but for good reason, and resisting thoughtless application of guidelines in isolation.....or to allow prejudiced comments to stand in an RM, for that matter. The premise that "Squamish" is English while "Skwxwu7mesh" is also, upon close examination - and you don't have to even look too close - completely fabulous and rather, um, bizarre. And also standing up for PRIMARYTOPIC against people who voted for this move who didn't even know where Squamish was, hadn't heard of the people before, one who confused them wit the Suguamish etc...I'd say knowing the turf and speaking up for it should not be branded as 2031:, especially in BC, where such terms are not part of standard English (they may not be in your ENGLISH, but CANENGL applies here), among those reasons were a host of PRIMARYTOPIC collisions with major geographic placenames; hence Nuxalk vs Bella Coola, St'at'imc vs Lillooet, Secwepemc vs Shuswap, and so on; but you'd have to know BC to "get it": OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to toss out efforts to maintain a convention that was established with good reason and by thoughtful deliberation by several editors who know the turf, and the topic. 293: 275: 565: 499: 2567:

all to conventions about this class of ethno article; and was closed hastily, and without anyone involved who was familiar with the town and/or the people taking part, in only seven days. The same bad reasons to keep it here continue to be presented, the other reasons as to why not continue to be ignored.....and I'm backed into a corner because any time I criticize those reasons is construed/branded as a "personal attack". This title is anamalous within

1596:. The name Lillooet wasn't applied to the Fraser River or Lakes groups until the town was renamed in 1860, just as since then the "people of Sat" meaning is now used by the Lil'wat and the Lower Lillooet (Skatin, Samahquam, Xa'xtsa/Douglas), though for the language they prefer the name Ucwalmicwts down that way (that's on the title of the primer from the Upper St'at'imc Cultural and Language Education Society I have in storage somewhere....so is the norm 1865:- I don't suppose you have clued into the fact that "Squamish" isn't English either; it's only an older-era attempt at romanization of what is spelled (with special characters and diacriticals) in Skwxwu7msh snichim as "Skwxwu7mesh". "Squamish" is not any more an English word than "Skwxwu7mesh" is. And I won't start listing all th article and category titles in Knowledge, not just in indigenous topics, that are "not English". Have a look in 2043:. If you insist on it being in English, the name of the people -and the town and the river - should be "mother of the wind" or "sacred water" or "dreamkiller". Squamish is no more an English word than Skwxwu7mesh is; and in recent years, especially, Skwxwu7mesh is common and is found in lots of reliable sources, including school curricula, academic papers, publications of the Squamish Nation government, and in Vancouver media. 613:

English. For example, Chinese people don't call their country China, but that is the English word for it so that is the name used (and of course there are hundreds of other examples). I can only conclude that some "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" people had a strong feeling about this issue, perhaps feeling that it was offensive to use the Anglicized word? Are people going to get upset and/or immediately revert it if I were to change the title?

2438:

ignored; "Nootka" and "Kwakiutl" are still common names for the Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth, and Bella Coola for the Nuxalk; that doesn't mean that they should be article titles; COMMONNAME is being used as a bludgeon here and other issues concerning these names are being shoved aside.... and the PRIMARYTOPIC problem here isn't going to go away by constantly shaking COMMONNAME around as if it were an ironclad rule

2027:- that are represented by the other material in the same categories and topic areas you are waving away by invoking that guideline out of context to the whole. The Fifth Pillar "There Are No Rules" always seems to be lost in the shuffle of people throwing around guidelines without actually knowing or caring about the topics their "input" is affecting. Endonyms were chosen for ethno category/article names for 386: 365: 1149:, is that some Sḵwx̱wú7mesh regard "Squamish" as offensive, because the name is part of a government that they regard as imposed and perhaps illegitimate. I don't know if any of the editors who held that view are still active. One of them I believe made the claim that "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" was used in English conversation and writing to distinguish the First Nation and its people from the imposed government. 489: 462: 211: 2078:"English" usage has caused all kinds of problems, it was stable where it was for a long time until people started coming along and tossing around guidelines like snowballs...who didn't even read the article, or know about the town. Also the pretense that it's fine for Knowledge to be insensitive and chauvinist is rubbish....and simplistic, as well as yielding unsatisfactory results..... 2242:; there may be a variant spelling of Syilx among the Colvilles I'm not sure - another case of that infamous /7/ glottal stop that gets people's knickers in a knot (they don't similar complain about the colon in Sto:lo though). So with only a very few exceptions, when there was no clear endonym in use, and because many of the major peoples are very well-known by their endonyms 244: 2313:. What I do see here, with the original convention dissolving with so many attacks on it by people invoking guidelines out of context, often without proper citations or justifications or based on misconceptions or even outright prejudice. Bear in mind, too, that this main article reversion to its original-long-standing title is being RMd because of the CfD underway at 1313:

of sensitivity or a confusing title (as if it were alone in Knowledge in being a term most people don't recognize). The move should have been to remove diacriticals only; the mess that's created is deplorable, as are the arguments by rule-biters who resist any logic to the need for a better category name; both article and category should be at the un-diacritical

1703:(3) The previous RM, as I have pointed out there, was flawed in numerous ways, not the least of which was the namespace collision with the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish" being overwhelmingly the District of Squamish (referred to as "the town", "District" is a municipal status), which became manifest when someone speedied the category this is the main article for to 2614:. That this change sat since 2011 or whenever it was because I was inactive, and OldManRivers absent, is only a matter of how glacially-slow Wikipedian procedures are, and how exhaustive they can be to get the most simple thing done; so we stay away from them, because of the CABAL effect Ottawahitech points out in the CfD, rather than engage; then when we 2023:. It is also the same word as "Squamish" only spelled more accurately, so the argument that a name has to be English to be in Knowledge can be thrown right out the window in any such case of an adopted native term; the "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" shibboleth doesn't serve to recognize the conventions about indigenous names in Canadian English - in Canadian 1547:(Suquamish). The /b/ at one time may have been an /m/ instead, which would result in all those being amš, which is similar to -mesh. Hence, when we look at the languages, one can see how the Coast Salish and Interior Salish are related. I will look for reference/citation to include the explaining of -mesh on the Squamish people article though. 2562:?? You are always proposing simple guideline-invocations which ignore all of the parallel precedents and the reasons why they exist...and don't shove that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale at me, it's as insulting as TLDR. The people informed and aware of the town and the people have supported me in the CfD, and the previous RM here 598:

on this discussion page, which outlined problems with browsers displaying the characters etc and appeared unresolved. Is there a reason for this? Is it simply out of respect to or due to requests or edits by the Squamish people? Just curious as this appears inconsistant to most of the rest of the English Knowledge. Thanks :-)

2628:

should be tossed aside as "Knowledge doesn't have to acknowledge that" as if there weren't wikipedians who disagree with such thinking. One thing I know about Knowledge is it doesn't acknowledge a lot of its own problems....and that the people talking like that cherrypick guidelines and ignore whole

2388:

are for now. How to add second and third items to an RM listing I'll look into later; explaining the obvious - what is obvious to anyone in BC, and anyone familiar with Canadian English adoption of native-preferred terms - over for the fortieth time. Please look beyond your guidelines, and get your

1312:

which is now undergoing an arduous and, because of this article-title, seemingly intractable CfR where the premise that article titles and category names "must" match, despite the existing standards within IPNA and WPCAN to use the endonyms where appropriate (as they were here). This is not a matter

715:

It looks like a few years back there was a debate held about whether the title should be Squamish or Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, and it appears that those who felt it should be the latter spelling as opposed to the English spelling won. I can only assume that it was because the people who were on the "it should be

2233:

bands to refer to only one example. And the "Okanagan people", whose name we confabbed about because of the variable spelling of it from one side of the border to the other (Okanagan/Okanogan, in the case of the river resolved by favouring the US spelling as the majority of the river's length is in

2224:

to this RM, and may yet (see below). The town which is the core of the municipality called the District of Squamish is decidely the PRIMARYTOPIC and also the MOSTCOMMON usage of "Squamish". The rationale that www.squamish.net is "proof" that it is "somewhat official" is offbase; the name of a band

2057:. The primary topic of the word "Squamish" is the town, and that is the problem here also; most "FOO people" titles (other than in indigenous topics, were "people" was wantonly added needlessly to lots of articles that were just fine at "FOO") mean "people from FOO" or "people who are FOOish", .e.g 1178:. Only the last two are not redirects to the traditional English exonyms. In the case of Lakota, the exonym "Sioux" refers to other groups as well, and the Tohono O'odham have put a lot of effort into pushing their endonym, to the extent that it is probably more used today in English than "Papago".-- 809:

guidelines have been examined in the following RM, nor the prior consensus re terminology and paradigms because of differences between the concept of peoples vs band governments vs language groups, and the scattered application of mis-used guidelines, has resulted in time-consuming chaos and yet the

2623:

to the other categories and articles in the same area. None of you seem to get that...... just as you refuse to see the geographic problem with this name, or the emerging cultural/linguistic reality in Canada.....but hell, we're just a colony and should do as we're told and accept what Wikipedians

2375:

the ethnographic group/people/"tribe" but is the town; it was out of deference to the people that I originally made the dab page with them as equals to the town, being its namesake (indirectly); but once OldManRivers came along and provided the authentic in-use-in-modern-English term used among his

2329:

RM.....and that Wikipedians in distant countries oblivious to the experience of his and other peoples having their names taken away from them and dictated by people from distant lands...well, it's just not a very pretty context, let's put it that way; he's indicated he'll be by here soon to comment

2038:

more common than "Squamish people", especially in more recent texts. So "UCN" falls down, especially if you're saying that it's "common" because it's used on the name of the river, the band government, the municipality, the regional district, and on a host of company names which have nothing to do

1561:

K, thanks, would be good to know before attempting an RM....the slashed lambda re St'at'imcets by the way, pretty sure if you use that there's no need for the apostrophe; in the Van Eijk orthography for St'at'imcets that's now official with the SN/LTC and USCCLES the /t'/ represents that "ƛ" sound,

1442:

and other completely confusing namespace collisions if your speedies hadn't been corrected after long and arduous argument with YOU, no matter how many cites were brought forward you still dug in your heels and opposed any and all cites, citing specious reasons to ignore them and insist on your own

1339:

were just hot air and produced nothing worth looking at or even looking into? Guidelines are not hard and fast rules, and if there are reasons to make exceptions (as there are in all these cases) ignoring those exceptions is contrary to the guidelines....claiming they are "policy" when there is no

1078:

is their name in their language, not in English. The special characters were developed in order to create a written language (that uses some characters from the Latin/Roman alphabet) because their language was originally oral only. "Squamish Nation" is the government of the Squamish people. See the

597:

I have noticed the English word Squamish is shown in this article and others, such as the Stanley Park article in the Squamish language, as "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh", as opposed to in the English language? Forgive my ignorance of any earlier discussion or controversy on this issue other than the first section

2618:

we are told that our reluctance to challenge the existing power group in each procedural area means that the term has stood in place for a while and so therefore is now acceptable. Despite its problems, despite the conflicts with other guidelines, even despite the evidence that this term is now at

2566:

passed....if I hadn't been targeted as a "problem" in the way of doing the right thing, even though it was me who had provided all the points that leant that decision in that direction; the original RM here, I will continue to maintain, was biased and based on false assumptions and no reference at

2432:

Alrighty then, so how do you propose to solve the namespace collision problem - and the implications of "FOO people" - which have severely impacted category name issues? COMMONNAME cannot be viewed in isolation like this when other conventions covering groups of article are at play; and I keep on

2199:

One other thing that's being glossed over again and again; that conventions in given categories that were long-standing until being piecemeal-messed with; instead they were ignored and RMs even pulled on their main articles to try and foment speedy changes to "more English" archaic/distorted terms

612:

No input? I see that there was discussion about this some years ago. It doesn't personally affect me, I just noticed that the name of this article does not comply with Knowledge naming conventions, in that all article titles are supposed to be in the language of the Knowledge version, in this case

1806:

occur in English sources, as on that Tyee link, it's not with all the diacriticals. From my own end of things, it's practicality that leads me to have proposed Skwxwu7mesh on the CfD, and on last year's CfD, and here again; that it's easier to type. Similar stripping-of-diacriticals was done on

2096:

of this topic. Although I quoted guidelines and policy, I did my homework, too. I did a number of searches before arriving at my opinion using various word combinations with Google web search and Google Books/Google Ngram and I am astute enough to discern references for the town versus for the

2002:

contexts, particularly the town (District of Squamish), than for the people. It is because of those other contexts that convention has risen within the membership of the Squamish Nation and in communities living around them to use "Skwxwu7mesh" to distinguish between all those other more common

3114:

I just wanted to provide some feedback for possible edits to be made! I think that there are some underrepresented views in this article that can be improved upon. What I mean by this can be first seen in the sections discussing the land and geographical history of the Squamish. Although a very

2077:

and try and slog, if you will, through my explanations of so much and more on the CfD and my responses to the previous RM, and also to OldManRivers' thoughts on this.....him being an expert on the subject and all, and who per MOS should be deferred to as the article's creator; changing it to an

2520:

convention that you all very pointedly are ignoring even discussing? The PRIMARYTOPIC problem here is not going to go away; those Canadians who commented on the problem in the CfD have all been ignored in favour of the same old refrains of the same old guidelines being invoked as if they were

2437:

and their corresponding main article titles were all hashed out at the dawn of wiki-time; moving this one to where it is now was done for all kinds of wrong reasons vs what had been there - not the least of which is obvious prejudice - and the conventions about using indigenous names in Canada

2068:

All this is old ground, and I get dissed for "walls of text" as an excuse for nobody taking time to understand or research the issues. Potshotting guidelines as nostrums here for 'easy answers' doesn't work, and the results invariably by such actions, taken out of context with conventions and

1249:

I know you were just explaining what happened in the past & why to your knowledge :-) I was just explaining that I understood but still disagree with the naming. Knowledge is not the place to try to bring about changes in the public vernacular. I also think part of the contention with this

800:

controversial and any attempt to change them back was vociferously opposed by the same lone editor, on endlessly trivial grounds and despite demanding sources, provided none of this own. The result of your RM nomination below has been a completely unworkable ill-advised category name, and now

846:

these things were named and organized as they are, are the ones "voting" does not add up....votes based on false premises or insufficient knowledge/information, and knee-jerking about "what is English and what is not" I see more and more of; the result is, in teh case of indigenous articles,

699:

in English. This can be verified easily and is actually reflected in most (but not all) of the references and bibliography. Question... Do most peoples around the world not have English Knowledge articles titled in English instead of their own language? Or is there a difference here? Just

1222:

I'm not arguing either way; I just wanted to provide some perspective on how it ended up at this title. Certainly many other Knowledge articles have names for political reasons, in many cases after carefully crafted compromises. In this case, it seems that the editors who strongly supported

2101:

uses of "Skwxwu7mesh" and that that name has some official sanction but "Squamish" is more common across the board and it, too, still has official usage as I pointed out. I don't deny this may change in the future but it is not Knowledge's job to instigate this change. I considered the

2600:

and others.....winnowing googlestats to exclude uses of "Squamish" for the town and the band government et al, i.e. for "Squamish people" vs "Skwxwu7mesh" are, last time I looked, in favour of the latter; especially if results from earlier times are disregarded. That the Olympic-funded

1204:. There could certainly be some mention of the controversy about the name and it's history in the article (provided there are sources for it of course). I don't see how it justifies going against the article naming guidelines solely because some people dislike the spelling Squamish. -- 2011:

the people. But you will also find on that site many uses of "Skwxwu7mesh" in English phrases, and you will also find it in media and academic writing in BC and community news and bumpf from Squamish and the North Shore (i.e. North Van, where two of the largest reserve communities

2184:

And if you don't winnow out non-BC/non-Canada linguistic/ethnographic writings, and non-Canadian writings in general (other than from Germany where they're "up" on indigenous cultures/revivals), then your data will remain skewed against the emergent Canadian cultural/lingistic

2495:

Why is it that all of you who trot out that refrain continue to recognize the PRIMARYTOPIC collision with the town of Squamish? Why is it that you all ignore the "FOO people" paradigm for article titles, and for category titles, is for "people/individuals who are FOO"? e.g.

1928:. Non-English names may be increasingly accepted but that does not make them the most common or the most accessible to a general audience. While native cultural revival is laudable (from my perspective, anyway), it is not Knowledge's job to promote it. Knowledge should 2706:

and which has been acknowledged in complex RMs last year. There are other cases to consider, but these are part of the context of the adoption of native ethnonyms as placenames in Canada and the modern introduction of alternate forms that are romanizations of the terms

2571:

and related main articles there; and the conventions very evident in both instances should be taken into consideration - but they are always ignored. The blinkers-on attitude re COMMONNAME as if it were the only consideration this should be judged on, actually ignores

2715:

are now common fare in Canadian English. Making this one an exception because someone doesn't like a '7' in the name or thinks it's unpronounceable (when there's lots of unpronounceable titles out there, particularly in indigenous topic areas) is really trivial by

2069:

practices in these categories and in articles related to this one, taken by people who don't know the context, don't realize the PRIMARYTOPIC issue, make assumptions about "NOT ENGLISH" and "COMMONNAME" that don't bear up to scrutiny and more; see the other RMs at

2003:

uses. You will find a comment from VolcanoGuy on the CfD about how the use of Skxwwu7mesh for clarity for anyone frequenting the Squamish region makes one whole lot of sense. "He was a Squamish living in Squamish by the Squamish River" is only the start of it.

2525:

reasons why the old diacritical-text title was accepted by so many editors for so long; there would be other diacritical titles out there too, if *I* hadnt' changed them. The notion that Squamish is "more easily pronounceable" also doesn't register, like at

1881:

and more. Please educate yourself on (a) what the range of article/category titles are foreign words that are used in English, and are already in use in Knowledge and (b) the increasing acceptance of indigenously-prefered names in Canadian English. Not in

2609:

pronunciation) in English; invoking one guideline out of context to all else is not serving anyone's interests here, and not providing a solution to the PRIMARYTOPIC namespace collision or the aberration from other ethno article title conventions that have

2006:

The usage of the Squamish Nation website does not indicate the usage for the people as a whole. "Squamish Nation" is the band government's legal name as registered with Indian Affairs under the Indian Act, "squamish.net" refers to the government,

1254:

title is in English characters (although I would still debate whether it's the most commonly known English word for it - even in BC Canada where I live). But I'm not saying that some of the other article titles don't also need to be changed, (as

347: 1802:' preference, as you'll find in lengthy discussions much earlier on this talkpage, some maybe archived by now. The pure-Skwxwu7mesh snichim version, with diacriticals, is very much his own preference, but the reality is that when the name 2168:. But if recent results show a dominance of the new usage, arguing that it's Knowledge's job to throw cold water on that rather than recognize the new linguistic reality is highly questionable. This is what is exactly the case with 767:

This comment "I have been able to find a couple other articles that uses non-English spellings" was in the wake of undiscussed speedies by a certain editor who ignored previous name discussions; but even without those, now reverted

3143: 341: 920:

current title is not in the English language, in contrast with the English Knowledge naming convention guidelines. Please post whether you support or dispute the proposed renaming (and why). I am listing this article at

1365:"). user:Chris Clark is correct in his guesstimation that endonyms are indeed now the increasing norm in Canada, particularly in BC, and for good reasons, both ethnographically and in terms of indigenous-sensitivity. 2685:

perhaps, but who can say that was not the agenda of those invoking UE and COMMONNAME here, in isolation of the rest of the context of the name, and of the related ethno titles/categories. I have filed a similar RM at

1729: 2376:

people to distinguish their community/identity from their band government, and the town, and I learned that comma-province on town names was not necessary if there were no other towns of that name, that the dab on

1385:

have replaced "Interior Tsimshian" as they used to be called (the Nisga'a were spelled as the Nishga, which is pretty much how that's pronounced but is not used in media or academic sources any longer; Skwxwu7mesh

153: 2015:"Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" was the preference of the article's creator (please note again the end of the third paragraph of the intro to MOS) and may indeed better belong in a Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Knowledge. But "Skwxwu7mesh" is a 1486:

I came looking for what I know had been here about the meaning of the name.....where'd it go? Been lots of vandalism here of late, maybe it didn't get reverted once it got deleted; it's not on the language page

719:

This article is not the only inconsistency; I have been able to find a couple other articles that uses non-English spellings for names of Canadian first nations tribes (and a few place names), one example being

1761:

I'll be back later with excerpts from the St'at'imc/Tsilhqot'in/Ktunaxa and other RMs from last year about respecting indigenous languages and emergent norms for same in Canadian English and Canadian society.

3148: 694:

could be prominent in the intro sentence if it is notable and verifiable. But, as others have said, this is the English Knowledge and the name of these people is most often and most expected to be written

1700:(2) noting especially what is now at the end of the third paragraph of MOS, namely "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 317: 948: 3138: 1588:

orthography is the closest to English-style romanization of the sounds, Stlatliumh, which you'll see in older writings and on older maps, sometimes as Slatliumh...."people of Sat'" it means, where

944: 830:

and re "English wikipedia"....on Canadian-content articles, terms used in Canadian English (as Skwxwu7mesh is, though not to the same degree as Sto:lo and Secwepemc and St'at'imc etc.......,

2180:

support what they were moved to; the mover of Wuikinuxv didn't even get the archaic spelling right, or chose one that's by far in the minority of several (Owikeno as I recall, it's now at

801:

suggestions that all ethno-tribal categories be deleted. Nice....very constructive. The Skwxwu7mesh article was started by a Skwxwu7mesh person; he's part Kwakwaka'wakw also and started

300: 280: 3004: 1694: 2461:

For the exact same reasons as Necrothesp. The name used locally is not the driving factor. What's most relevant is the most commonly used named in reliable English language sources.--

2234:

the US; the opposite is the case with the Kootenay/Kootenai River), their website is www.syilx.org. They do go by, as a political organization spanning both sides of the border, the

2393:

is English and what isn't. This requires wisdom, not blind guideline-tossing. Yes, indeedy, "other stuff exists", and you should find out about some of that in the meantime, also.

1263:. I am not trying to be insensitive - I am part native myself - but I just find article titles like "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" confusing and to be in contradiction with the pertinent policy. -- 1743:

at Whistler, which is an Olympic legacy (and needs an article as a now-major museum and tourist attraction), and that the name Skwxwu7mesh was also used in the opening ceremonies'

648:(that I don't even want to copy & paste because it is so completely unnecessary and I don't want to promote it) is just not an English word: it's a Squamish word, just like 3024: 2974: 1890:

and have a read and maybe even educate yourself on the native cultural revival. Gee, you might even consider reading the article before commenting on it again (had you even?).

968: 1502:

I may have removed it until I get get a proper citation. Or it got deleted in some of the edits/vandalisms. I can’t remember which took place. Haha 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

810:

original speedies remain unreverted despite the obvious fact that they were faulty and have resulted in useless confusion....and a very bad category name, very bad indeed.

202: 1231:

is used as the article title ("Kwakiutl", the commonest English exonym, is inaccurate); perhaps endonyms are more often used in Canada, or at least in British Columbia.--

147: 3183: 3014: 3173: 545: 2521:

ironclad. Seems to me people around here care more about invoking guidelines out of context than they do in taking the wider view and recognizing that there were

1732:, excluding "snichim" (which when coupled with the main term is the name of the language, so I'm excluding publications about the language), has 16,200 results. 3056: 3052: 3038: 2898: 2894: 2880: 2584:

despite the geographic/PRIMARYTOPIC issue there, which is overwhelmingly about the town, not this people, is a further reason why this title is not workable; and

1361:, for the Palouse people, is still the way it is because (a) that's preferred by the people affected and (b) to distinguish it from other uses of the same term ( 1336: 2050:(twice) invoking "category name must match main article title" as if it were a RULE (and not a guideline only) and we wound up with the completely unworkable 1995:

in the last one, and in the history of the name discussions about this article you will find above if you go look for them. Here's some immediate responses:

1654:. With the exception of the nominator, unanimous consensus is that the name most used in reliable English language sources is the appropriate article title. 1531:. The word for people in hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ is xʷəlmexʷ, where as in Sḵwx̱wú7mesh it is stélmexw. Similar, you see. Then you travel to the interior where we get 3178: 3158: 2858: 2568: 2434: 2200:(in the case of Kwakiutl, completely unacceptable for all but a few bands). The convention to use indigenously-authentic endonyms I must underscore was 1866: 1123: 1009:- Article titles should be recognizable to English language readers and consistent with reliable, common English language sources. Worth repeating from 444: 434: 79: 3005:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100214105720/http://www.squamish.net/files/Images/media_centre/Kitsilano_land_belongs_to_natives_appeal_judges_agree.jpg

1714:, which is related to all this, and he should be joining us shortly with print citations from the Squamish Nation libraries and current academic work. 2698:

because that town name, like Squamish, is unique and technically - according to yet another guideline - does not need/want the comma-province dab on

2681:

RM, I should have included those at the same time, to give emphasis to teh PRIMARYTOPIC problem that is consistently - persistently - ignored here.

2334:

is the ultimate "reliable source" (other than his elders). No doubt someone will try and dismiss him as COI and/or POV....more guideline-tossing....

3168: 3163: 555: 44: 2508:), that were created by "someone" (Kwami) going around adding "people" to them so he could make disambiguation pages which weren't needed? (e.g. 2160:

in wider usage, locally and lately internationally; except on a certain wiki-linguist's dusty shelves of older books with the archaic forms. I

1321:. The current situation is untenable and this RM and others that happened re the St'at'imc and Nlaka'pamux and others need revisitation........ 574: 472: 3008: 3188: 3025:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131012010943/http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=555&lang=eng

2975:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131012010943/http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=555&lang=eng

2156:

this change. We heard the same thing about St'at'imc/Secwepemc/Ktunaxa/Tsilhqot'in/Nlaka'pamux etc - at least in those cases those endonyms

805:

article and its category, the Dakelh article was started by the pre-eminent scholar in that field, who also started that category. That not

305: 85: 2605:

in Whistler got no "must be English" response from the IOC or the BC/federal governments points to the acceptability of this term (and the

2309:. WP:OWN seems much more to be the trait of those who toss around WP:UE without even realizing the names they are changing aren't English 2204:

created after discussions here and there around IPNA and WPBC and WPCAN about geographic name conflicts with PRIMARYTOPICS. As I noted, I

410: 1641:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

3153: 2381: 2290:

I'd created a disambiguation page early on without knowing about comma-dab-nope on unique placenames. Oh, and about guidelines, it was

2092:

I won't "diss" your "wall of text" (and I appreciate the effort) but there is not much new and some of your comments implicitly rest on

409:

and the surrounding metropolitan area on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1581: 313: 3028: 2978: 3034:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

521: 3015:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100214105714/http://www.squamish.net/files/Images/media_centre/Squamish_Nation_wins_Kits_battle_2.jpg

1972:(use common names). "Squamish" is overwhelmingly more common in a variety of contexts and seems to have official sanction as well. 2994: 2984: 1523:

Interesting note on that. There are theories that /-mesh/ and /-mexw/ have similar origins. They both mean "people" in different

2516:. Why is it you all refuse to acknowledge that back in the mists of wiki-time people familiar with this topic area hashed out a 2065:. The -mesh ending happens to mean "people" but never mind that; here the title tends to mean "people from the town of Squamish" 2254:, as there is not one standard romanization of the Hunquminum name, but competing ones (different political factions, perhaps); 393: 370: 99: 30: 2034:

I've already demonstrated via the google search in the proposal that, when referring to the ethnographic group, "Skwxwu7mesh"

168: 198: 194: 190: 104: 20: 2504:. I note that there are various "FOO people" ethno main-articles out there, nearly all of them with one or two exceptions ( 1095:) other articles on specific indigenous peoples of Canada (at least the ones that fit the naming convention guidelines). -- 135: 3018: 2580:

been used, first by speedy, then by a rash action to re-create it after it was changed by CfD, to create the category name

1725: 1707:

and also votes from at least one person who thought another people entirely was the subject of discussion (the Suguamish).

1407:

The category names are irrelevant. If people are improperly renaming categories, then that should be addressed there. —

74: 2602: 1740: 1250:

article in particular is that it uses non-English characters & diacriticals which are not widely known. At least the

3099: 1593: 1260: 512: 467: 309: 255: 1298:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

884:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2859:

https://web.archive.org/20070127133028/http://www.ec.gc.ca:80/soer-ree/English/Framework/Nardesc/Region.cfm?region=196

65: 2800:

per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way.

1369:

is not in English either (not sure what the equivalent in English would be, in fact not sure there is one...) nor is

670:, which was the policy used to justify the move. This is still the English Knowledge, not the Squamish Knowledge. -- 2699: 2668: 2377: 2364: 2217: 1925: 1874: 1447:

that category names don't HAVE to match main article names, but too many others have been operating as though they

1426:

to say after all the reckless speedy moves you'd done which provided the terms for the close on the RM that caused

1091:

would be the most appropriate title for the rename for this article. And it seems to be in line with the names of (

675: 657: 210: 185: 2238:

but they refer to themselves as the Syilx overall (those in the Upper Nicola Band at Douglas Lake call themselves

2695: 2663: 2483: 2478:

Squamish people is an acceptable common name, and has the great advantage of being pronounceable by most readers.

2368: 2213: 1632: 922: 129: 3055:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2897:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1308:

This move has turned out to have disastrous consequences as it was used to speedy-changed the ethno category to

221: 2862: 2314: 2235: 1680: 1577: 1878: 847:

re-enforcing inadequate, confusing and archaic usages on people who themselves, and who mostly speak English,

2363:

and now see, that, given the PRIMARYTOPIC being easily provable as the town, that that title should be where

3090: 2966: 2466: 2275: 1921: 1131: 842:

with the places and peoples who naming and categorization are affected,and do not take the time to consider

748:

I placed a move template on the article page and posted a rename & move request below for discussion. --

125: 109: 3009:

http://www.squamish.net/files/Images/media_centre/Kitsilano_land_belongs_to_natives_appeal_judges_agree.jpg

1886:

English maybe, but Canadian English prevails on articles about subjects within Canada. And please look up

1779: 909: 2962: 2619:

least, if not more (and may be more) than the current title. This one article will form the precedent to

1552: 1524: 1236: 1183: 2046:

The further matter at hand here is that the conversion of this to its current title precipitated someone

1584:, has an apostrophe in it, maybe there's an implicit glottal-stop or voiceless marker, I'm not sure; the 3074:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3062: 2936: 2916:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2904: 2787: 2107: 1642: 1435: 1412: 898: 671: 653: 261: 2965:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2759:

citations indicate that COMMONNAME is not fixed in stone....unless reliance is kept on older citations.

2250:, to use the endonyms across the board in ethnographic categories; in the BC category one exception is 1718: 175: 1905: 1887: 1820: 1439: 2479: 2423: 2411: 2318: 1684: 1366: 1119: 989: 2359:

I should have thought to make this a multiple RM. I was the creator of the disambiguation page at

1748: 243: 2418:

reliable English language sources call them and it's clearly not true that this is Skwxwu7mesh. --

2226: 2113: 1976: 1946: 1784: 1268: 1209: 1100: 930: 753: 733: 618: 603: 161: 55: 3029:

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=555&lang=eng

2979:

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=555&lang=eng

785: 721: 520:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

316:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

292: 274: 2764: 2721: 2642: 2634: 2462: 2447: 2398: 2339: 2190: 2083: 1895: 1832: 1767: 1605: 1567: 1532: 1514: 1492: 1470: 1395: 1349: 1326: 1318: 1256: 1127: 1059: 976: 960: 856: 815: 641: 226: 70: 3059:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2901:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1733: 1223:"Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" are either no longer around or else don't have this article on their watchlists. 3075: 2995:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080610062724/http://historyink.com/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5100

2985:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080610062724/http://historyink.com/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5100

2917: 2702:

despite the supposed (but disprovable) "COMMONNAME" argument about the ethnic group, who go by

2624:

from beyond have to say about it, just like the native people whose input and their own usages

2271: 1370: 1154:

Other native American groups have endonyms which are demonstrably more widely used in English:

838:, nor are guidelines hard and fast when other conditions and circumstances apply. That people 564: 2840: 2581: 2385: 2267: 2239: 2051: 1799: 1704: 1693:(1) The various discussions and points-of-fact and convention and context can all be found in 1548: 1459: 1452: 1431: 1427: 1309: 1232: 1224: 1179: 997: 667: 629: 51: 1544: 141: 3120: 2932: 2810: 2539: 2103: 1408: 894: 402: 223: 3082: 2924: 1540: 2958: 2848: 2830: 2748: 2682: 2513: 2419: 2181: 1812: 1670: 1659: 1227:, who I believe is Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, last edited in June 2010. I also notice that the endonym 1175: 1146: 1080: 1010: 913: 777: 24: 1998:"Squamish" is indeed "more common in a variety of contexts" and it is far more common in 3019:

http://www.squamish.net/files/Images/media_centre/Squamish_Nation_wins_Kits_battle_2.jpg

2589: 2543: 1251: 1228: 3041:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2998: 2988: 2883:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2736: 2593: 2497: 2291: 2259: 2074: 2058: 1264: 1205: 1096: 1034: 926: 749: 729: 705: 632:. Even linguists can't be bothered with tongue-twisters and special character tornados 614: 599: 3081:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2923:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3132: 2760: 2717: 2638: 2630: 2527: 2505: 2501: 2443: 2394: 2335: 2326: 2306: 2298: 2186: 2126:

I get the "walls of text" and TLDR excuse so much I'm naturally defensive.....but re:

2093: 2079: 2070: 2062: 1969: 1933: 1917: 1891: 1870: 1853: 1828: 1763: 1711: 1601: 1563: 1510: 1488: 1466: 1391: 1345: 1322: 1055: 972: 956: 852: 811: 504: 2110:

trumps it in this case. Knowledge is a general reference for all English speakers.

1848:- This is English Knowledge, we use the English language not the Squamish language. 1600:

the language; Ucwalmicw is of course cognate to your Uxwuimixw or whatever it is....

1047: 776:

was a main page until the same editor converted it into a disambiguation containing

2777: 2230: 1940: 1937: 1913: 1536: 1289: 1024: 993: 875: 2703: 1991:

Sigh. This is all old ground, and answers to your points are in the current CfD

1816: 781: 3116: 3048: 2890: 2801: 2744: 2551: 1314: 796:. The premise that undiscussed speedies can be used as examples when they were 385: 364: 2225:

government is not the same thing as the name of the people/ethnographic group (

3047:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2889:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2786:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

2747:, applied by the reigning expert in the field; a similar decision expected at 2687: 2165: 1655: 1528: 1344:

about this, and when guidelines are amendable, is a weak abuse of the language

1163: 494: 488: 461: 2863:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Framework/Nardesc/Region.cfm?region=196

2752: 2169: 1465:. You're been reckless, arrogant, and once again, as here, incredibly smug. 1087:

is a disambiguation page with numerous possible articles, so I figured that

1030: 701: 398: 2743:

is also relevant here, not in the least because the latter title was, like

2433:

bringing ujp the Fifth Pillar, which was in fact invoked when the names in

2258:

was also established by OldManRivers, and also moved without discussion to

225: 2509: 1920:(use common names). The place for correct Squamish usage would be at the 1752: 1576:

Well, having said that, the older official orthography, still used by the

1390:

appear in print in BC, including media, depending on the speaker/reporter.

1382: 773: 2691: 2672: 2659: 2360: 2287: 2283: 2255: 2251: 2221: 2209: 2176:

was speedy-moved without discussion and yet the weight of citations does

1849: 1167: 1084: 3124: 3104: 2944: 2845:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2815: 2768: 2725: 2646: 2487: 2470: 2451: 2427: 2402: 2343: 2194: 2164:

resist the name change until such time as it became official, likewise

2120: 2087: 1983: 1953: 1899: 1857: 1836: 1793: 1771: 1663: 1609: 1571: 1556: 1518: 1496: 1474: 1416: 1399: 1353: 1330: 1272: 1240: 1213: 1187: 1135: 1104: 1063: 1038: 1001: 980: 934: 902: 860: 819: 757: 737: 709: 679: 661: 622: 607: 2690:

in exactly the same context. Others out there I may yet consider e.g.

2531: 2301:. What I'm seeing is people "owning" guidelines and insisting on them 2173: 1509:

ending....is that "people" such that "Skwxwu7mesh people" is redundant?

1378: 1373:(where Micmac is the old English language norm, though rarely seen now 1362: 1159: 1155: 793: 2740: 2597: 2547: 2414:. It's irrelevant what they call themselves. What's relevant is what 1808: 1171: 789: 728:

first nations tribes articles are titled with their English names. --

517: 406: 2558:

of other article names which aren't readily/obviously pronounceable

2262:("people from Sechelt" is really teh convention for what that title 2294:

who invoked the Fifth Pillar about all this ("There Are No Rules").

1482:

what happened to the explanation of the name that used to be here?

2853:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2279: 1679:– THis RM is being filed in the context of the proposal to change 1539:, with the same ending. In the Washington side of things, we have 1358: 971:

results for "Skwxwu7mesh", after taking off the goofy diacritics.

2371:. This is to clarify that the MOSTCOMMON usage of "Squamish" is 1562:

it's not a glottal stop or, as it is in Chinookan, a plosive 't'.

1335:"the pertinent policy"?? you mean that all the deliberations in 947:

post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh",

925:

because I am treating it as potentially controversial. Thanks! --

2097:

people. You are right that there has been a recent increase in

690:

seems like the right title for this English article. Certainly

3144:

Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles

1717:(5) Searching for his real-life name and "Skwxwu7mesh" I found 652:

is a French word. Political correctness gone haywire, again. --

834:

English. The pretense that English should be standardized is

237: 227: 15: 2656:

as your probably know by now, I have filed a further RM for:

1908:

being redlinked. Inasmuch as it is such, this chauvinism is

1019:

name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is

2868:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2248:

by people familiar with the topics AND the geographic issues

1145:: My understanding from previous discussions, reinforced by 563: 2629:

other areas of guidelines, and their various exceptions....

2106:

issue (Canadian English for Canadian topics) but feel that

1973: 2969:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2677:

by rights, and if I'd given it more thought before filing

686:

Maybe I'm missing a controversial or political issue, but

640:

linguists are aware of the utility and validity of having

1126:. (are there any others like this? Fix them too please). 326:

Knowledge:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

3149:

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles

2829:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

1631:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

874:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

329:

Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

2834: 1675: 1200:

Still, that's a political reason to title the article

160: 2776:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2274:

is still in the offing and has a reason to exist, nb

1736:, excluding "Knowledge", yielded only 4,450 results]. 1288:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3139:

B-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles

2999:

http://historyink.com/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5100

2989:

http://historyink.com/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5100

2146:

it is not Knowledge's job to instigate this change.

1739:(6) Please note, from that first google search, the 516:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 397:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 304:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3051:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2893:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1645:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2790:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2266:mean); I'm not sure we got around to establishing 1451:be changed, which is what happened to what is now 346:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1015:Knowledge does not necessarily use the subject's 628:Note that the language article has been moved to 2367:is now and the disambiguation page should be at 1975:If I am missing something, please enlighten. — 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2711:preferred by the peoples themselves, and which 301:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 3037:This message was posted before February 2018. 2879:This message was posted before February 2018. 1724:of the use of Skwxwu7mesh in English. And on 851:and largely disregard and consider incorrect. 174: 8: 2282:by Canadian disambiguation "rules" but like 1924:. As far as the names of other peoples go, 1023:to refer to the subject in English-language 918:Rationale for the proposed page name change: 700:wondering what principle is at work here. -- 332:Indigenous peoples of North America articles 2380:is completely unnecessary, likewise on the 1755:("Burrard" and "(Lower) Lillooet" peoples). 2569:Category:First Nations in British Columbia 2435:Category:First Nations in British Columbia 1867:Category:First Nations in British Columbia 456: 359: 269: 2957:I have just modified 6 external links on 2576:guidelines....that this article name has 3184:Mid-importance British Columbia articles 2586:why it was not chosen in the first place 1317:or of -mesh isn't redundant for people, 1050:." So that's apparently the legal name. 2389:mind out of the shoebox about what you 2270:for lack of articles to put in it; but 2246:, the decision was made, collectively, 1827:used in English and (b) easier to type. 458: 361: 271: 241: 3174:Mid-importance Canada-related articles 1337:WP:Indigenous peoples of North America 7: 2019:English-publication version of that 1650:The result of the move request was: 1375:because of acceptance of the endonym 889:The result of the move request was: 510:This article is within the scope of 391:This article is within the scope of 298:This article is within the scope of 2603:Skwxwu7mesh Lil'wat Cultural Centre 2382:Category:Squamish, British Columbia 1741:Skwxwu7mesh Lil'wat Cultural Centre 1124:WP:naming conventions (use English) 323:Indigenous peoples of North America 314:indigenous peoples of North America 281:Indigenous peoples of North America 260:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 14: 3179:B-Class British Columbia articles 3159:Mid-importance Vancouver articles 2961:. Please take a moment to review 2833:. Please take a moment to review 2384:which is where what should be in 2317:and its wildly unacceptable twin 1734:This search for "Squamish people" 2538:pronunciation?? And what about 2303:without even reading the article 1697:and need not be replicated here; 1582:Lower Stl'atl'imx Tribal Council 1054:must be a native language name. 963:) 01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 497: 487: 460: 384: 363: 291: 273: 242: 209: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3169:B-Class Canada-related articles 1916:(use English) as determined by 1505:Reason I was asking was re the 550:This article has been rated as 439:This article has been rated as 419:Knowledge:WikiProject Vancouver 3164:WikiProject Vancouver articles 3125:16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 422:Template:WikiProject Vancouver 1: 2945:08:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 2325:. See OMR's comments on the 2229:is easily the largest of the 2152:Nor is it Knowledge's job to 1904:I couldn't help chuckling at 1875:Dune Ka Ziyeh Provincial Park 1730:This search for "Skwxwu7mesh" 1273:01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC) 1241:17:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1214:06:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1188:04:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1136:02:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 1105:01:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1064:01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1039:16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1002:16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 981:07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 935:11:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 903:18:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 867:Requested Move (Nov 23, 2011) 758:11:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 738:10:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 710:00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 680:22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 662:22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 593:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh versus Squamish? 572:This article is supported by 524:and see a list of open tasks. 413:and see a list of open tasks. 320:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3189:All WikiProject Canada pages 3105:07:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 2755:where, as with Skwxwu7mesh, 1594:Bridge River Fishing Grounds 1422:OH really?? Fine thing for 1261:Knowledge:naming conventions 1259:mentioned), if they violate 1046:On their Web site, it says " 772:, there are tons of others; 623:11:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 608:11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 575:WikiProject British Columbia 530:Knowledge:WikiProject Canada 310:Indigenous peoples in Canada 2637:) 05:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 2297:I reject the accusation of 533:Template:WikiProject Canada 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3205: 3154:B-Class Vancouver articles 3068:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2954:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2910:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2851:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2826:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2816:02:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 2700:Lillooet, British Columbia 2669:Squamish, British Columbia 2588:(as is also the case with 2378:Squamish, British Columbia 2365:Squamish, British Columbia 2218:Squamish, British Columbia 923:Knowledge: Requested Moves 556:project's importance scale 445:project's importance scale 348:project's importance scale 2769:05:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 2726:05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 2696:Lillooet (disambiguation) 2664:Squamish (disambiguation) 2647:04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 2488:22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 2471:21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 2452:04:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 2428:14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 2403:05:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2369:Squamish (disambiguation) 2344:16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 2214:Squamish (disambiguation) 2195:16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 2121:07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 2088:05:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2021:and it is used in English 1984:19:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1954:19:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1900:14:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1858:14:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1837:06:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1798:That would definitely be 1794:05:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1777:Shouldn't it be moved to 1772:05:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 1664:02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 1578:Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police 1475:04:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 1417:19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 861:09:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 820:09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 571: 549: 482: 438: 379: 345: 286: 268: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2783:Please do not modify it. 2735:The recent RM result at 2315:Category:Squamish people 2236:Okanagan Nation Alliance 1879:Tsii Aks Provincial Park 1681:Category:Squamish people 1638:Please do not modify it. 1610:02:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 1572:02:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 1557:01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 1519:06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 1295:Please do not modify it. 881:Please do not modify it. 2950:External links modified 2822:External links modified 2276:Comox, British Columbia 1497:10:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1400:14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1354:14:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1331:14:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 536:Canada-related articles 3110:Underrepresented Views 1922:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Knowledge 1525:Coast Salish languages 1430:and would have caused 953:Squamish native people 568: 250:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1932:what is already used 1747:narration, alongside 634:in an English context 567: 394:WikiProject Vancouver 203:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 3049:regular verification 2891:regular verification 2876:to let others know. 2837:. If necessary, add 2319:Category:Skwxwu7mesh 1685:Category:Skwxwu7mesh 1443:way. Fine thing to 1367:Category:Anishinaabe 1021:most frequently used 105:No original research 3039:After February 2018 2881:After February 2018 2872:parameter below to 2227:Lytton First Nation 1926:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1728:from squamish.net. 3093:InternetArchiveBot 3044:InternetArchiveBot 2886:InternetArchiveBot 2612:long been in place 1912:at Knowledge; see 1821:Category:St'at'imc 1436:Category:Chilcotin 1319:Skwxwu7mesh people 1079:Knowledge article 569: 513:WikiProject Canada 425:Vancouver articles 256:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3069: 2943: 2911: 2582:Category:Squamish 2480:John Pack Lambert 2386:Category:Squamish 2268:Category:Shishalh 2123: 2052:Category:Squamish 1956: 1800:User:OldManRivers 1705:Category:Squamish 1453:Category:Squamish 1432:Category:Lillooet 1428:Category:Squamish 1310:Category:Squamish 1225:User:OldManRivers 1089:"Squamish people" 1048:© Squamish Nation 666:By the way, note 630:Squamish language 590: 589: 586: 585: 582: 581: 455: 454: 451: 450: 358: 357: 354: 353: 234: 233: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3196: 3103: 3094: 3067: 3066: 3045: 2939: 2938:Talk to my owner 2934: 2909: 2908: 2887: 2852: 2844: 2808: 2785: 2534:, that it's the 2493:Comment/response 2272:Category:K'omoks 2118: 2111: 1981: 1951: 1944: 1906:Anglo-chauvinism 1888:anglo-chauvinism 1791: 1790: 1719:this example in 1678: 1640: 1624:Requested move 2 1464: 1458: 1440:Category:Shuswap 1371:Category:Mi'kmaq 1297: 1025:reliable sources 883: 672:Florian Blaschke 654:Florian Blaschke 538: 537: 534: 531: 528: 507: 502: 501: 500: 491: 484: 483: 478: 475: 473:British Columbia 464: 457: 427: 426: 423: 420: 417: 403:British Columbia 388: 381: 380: 375: 367: 360: 334: 333: 330: 327: 324: 306:Native Americans 295: 288: 287: 277: 270: 253: 247: 246: 238: 228: 214: 213: 204: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3129: 3128: 3112: 3097: 3092: 3060: 3053:have permission 3043: 2967:this simple FaQ 2959:Squamish people 2952: 2942: 2937: 2902: 2895:have permission 2885: 2846: 2838: 2831:Squamish people 2824: 2802: 2794: 2781: 2749:Owekeeno people 2440:which it is NOT 2278:should just be 2182:Owekeeno people 2114: 1977: 1947: 1813:Category:Sto:lo 1786: 1785: 1674: 1671:Squamish people 1636: 1626: 1484: 1462: 1456: 1302: 1293: 1147:Squamish Nation 1081:Squamish Nation 914:Squamish people 879: 869: 595: 535: 532: 529: 526: 525: 503: 498: 496: 476: 470: 424: 421: 418: 415: 414: 373: 331: 328: 325: 322: 321: 254:on Knowledge's 251: 230: 229: 224: 201: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 25:Squamish people 12: 11: 5: 3202: 3200: 3192: 3191: 3186: 3181: 3176: 3171: 3166: 3161: 3156: 3151: 3146: 3141: 3131: 3130: 3111: 3108: 3087: 3086: 3079: 3032: 3031: 3023:Added archive 3021: 3013:Added archive 3011: 3003:Added archive 3001: 2993:Added archive 2991: 2983:Added archive 2981: 2973:Added archive 2951: 2948: 2935: 2929: 2928: 2921: 2866: 2865: 2857:Added archive 2823: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2793: 2792: 2778:requested move 2772: 2771: 2737:Carrier people 2730: 2729: 2728: 2675: 2666: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2594:Nuu-chah-nulth 2514:Mi'kmaq people 2498:English people 2473: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2405: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2295: 2292:User:Phaedriel 2260:Sechelt people 2244:within English 2197: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2108:WP:COMMONALITY 2075:Talk:Wuikinuxv 2066: 2059:English people 2044: 2032: 2013: 2004: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1749:Tsleil-waututh 1737: 1715: 1708: 1701: 1698: 1669: 1667: 1648: 1647: 1633:requested move 1627: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1356: 1301: 1300: 1290:requested move 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1244: 1243: 1217: 1216: 1191: 1190: 1176:Tohono O'odham 1151: 1150: 1139: 1138: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1067: 1066: 1041: 1004: 983: 908: 906: 887: 886: 876:requested move 870: 868: 865: 864: 863: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 778:Mi'kmaq people 765:further update 713: 712: 683: 682: 664: 594: 591: 588: 587: 584: 583: 580: 579: 570: 560: 559: 552:Mid-importance 548: 542: 541: 539: 522:the discussion 509: 508: 492: 480: 479: 477:Mid‑importance 465: 453: 452: 449: 448: 441:Mid-importance 437: 431: 430: 428: 411:the discussion 389: 377: 376: 374:Mid‑importance 368: 356: 355: 352: 351: 344: 338: 337: 335: 318:the discussion 312:, and related 296: 284: 283: 278: 266: 265: 259: 248: 232: 231: 222: 220: 219: 216: 215: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3201: 3190: 3187: 3185: 3182: 3180: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3170: 3167: 3165: 3162: 3160: 3157: 3155: 3152: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3137: 3136: 3134: 3127: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3096: 3095: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3064: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3040: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2949: 2947: 2946: 2940: 2933: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2906: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2882: 2877: 2875: 2871: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2842: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2821: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2807: 2806: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2789: 2784: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2714: 2710: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2604: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2590:Kwakwaka'wakw 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544:Kwakwaka'wakw 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2528:Talk:Stawamus 2524: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506:Mohawk people 2503: 2502:French people 2499: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2463:Labattblueboy 2460: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412:WP:COMMONNAME 2409: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2327:Talk:Stawamus 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2172:, which like 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2109: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2076: 2072: 2071:Talk:Stawamus 2067: 2064: 2063:French people 2060: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1980: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1963: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1844: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1789: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1712:Talk:Stawamus 1709: 1706: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1646: 1644: 1639: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1623: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1481: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1461: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1311: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1296: 1291: 1286: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257:In ictu oculi 1253: 1252:Kwakwaka'wakw 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229:Kwakwaka'wakw 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128:In ictu oculi 1125: 1121: 1120:WP:COMMONNAME 1117: 1114: 1113: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 990:WP:COMMONNAME 987: 984: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 939: 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 924: 919: 915: 911: 905: 904: 900: 896: 892: 885: 882: 877: 872: 871: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 821: 817: 813: 808: 804: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770:but only some 766: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 755: 751: 747: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722:Stó:lō people 717: 711: 707: 703: 698: 693: 689: 685: 684: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 620: 616: 610: 609: 605: 601: 592: 577: 576: 566: 562: 561: 557: 553: 547: 544: 543: 540: 523: 519: 515: 514: 506: 505:Canada portal 495: 493: 490: 486: 485: 481: 474: 469: 466: 463: 459: 446: 442: 436: 433: 432: 429: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 390: 387: 383: 382: 378: 372: 369: 366: 362: 349: 343: 340: 339: 336: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 302: 297: 294: 290: 289: 285: 282: 279: 276: 272: 267: 263: 257: 249: 245: 240: 239: 236: 218: 217: 212: 208: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3113: 3091: 3088: 3063:source check 3042: 3036: 3033: 2956: 2953: 2930: 2905:source check 2884: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2867: 2828: 2825: 2811: 2804: 2803: 2797: 2782: 2775: 2756: 2732: 2712: 2708: 2678: 2653: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2585: 2577: 2573: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2535: 2522: 2517: 2492: 2475: 2458: 2439: 2415: 2407: 2390: 2372: 2356: 2331: 2322: 2310: 2302: 2263: 2247: 2243: 2205: 2201: 2177: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2145: 2115: 2098: 2054: 2047: 2040: 2035: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2008: 1999: 1992: 1988: 1978: 1965: 1948: 1929: 1909: 1883: 1871:Xeni Gwet'in 1862: 1845: 1824: 1803: 1787: 1780:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 1778: 1760: 1744: 1720: 1668: 1651: 1649: 1637: 1630: 1597: 1589: 1585: 1549:OldManRivers 1543:(Samish) or 1506: 1485: 1448: 1444: 1423: 1406: 1387: 1374: 1341: 1305: 1294: 1287: 1233:Curtis Clark 1202:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 1201: 1180:Curtis Clark 1142: 1115: 1092: 1088: 1076:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 1075: 1052:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 1051: 1043: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1006: 985: 964: 952: 940: 917: 910:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 907: 890: 888: 880: 873: 848: 843: 839: 835: 831: 806: 802: 797: 786:Blood people 769: 764: 745: 725: 718: 714: 696: 692:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh 691: 687: 649: 645: 637: 633: 611: 596: 573: 551: 511: 440: 392: 299: 262:WikiProjects 235: 206: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2788:move review 2745:Skwxwu7mesh 2716:comparison. 2552:Sheshatshiu 2330:also. And 2231:Nlaka'pamux 2208:have added 2029:good reason 1726:this poster 1676:Skwxwu7mesh 1643:move review 1537:Nlaka'pamux 1533:Sƛ’aƛ’imxǝc 1342:legislation 1315:Skwxwu7mesh 895:Vegaswikian 724:. However, 148:free images 31:not a forum 3133:Categories 3100:Report bug 2688:Talk:Comox 2626:in English 2420:Necrothesp 2166:Salish Sea 2041:IN ENGLISH 1683:"back" to 1529:Snuneymuxw 1164:Absaalooke 891:page moved 849:do not use 840:unfamiliar 782:Tsuu T'ina 668:WP:ENGLISH 638:especially 3083:this tool 3076:this tool 2925:this tool 2918:this tool 2753:Wuikinuxv 2704:St'at'imc 2202:expressly 2170:Wuikinuxv 2116:AjaxSmack 2104:WP:ENGVAR 2094:ownership 1979:AjaxSmack 1949:AjaxSmack 1943:sources. 1817:St'at'imc 1788:AjaxSmack 1652:not moved 1527:. Hence, 1455:and also 1265:MsBatfish 1206:MsBatfish 1097:MsBatfish 1013:policy: 927:MsBatfish 836:not valid 750:MsBatfish 730:MsBatfish 615:MsBatfish 600:MsBatfish 416:Vancouver 399:Vancouver 371:Vancouver 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3089:Cheers.— 2931:Cheers.— 2841:cbignore 2761:Skookum1 2718:Skookum1 2692:Lillooet 2683:WP:POINT 2673:Squamish 2660:Squamish 2639:Skookum1 2631:Skookum1 2518:workable 2444:Skookum1 2395:Skookum1 2361:Squamish 2336:Skookum1 2288:Lillooet 2284:Squamish 2256:Shishalh 2252:Musqueam 2240:Spa7omin 2222:Squamish 2210:Squamish 2187:Skookum1 2185:reality. 2080:Skookum1 2017:standard 1989:Comment. 1938:reliable 1934:commonly 1892:Skookum1 1829:Skookum1 1764:Skookum1 1721:The Tyee 1695:that CFD 1602:Skookum1 1580:and the 1564:Skookum1 1511:Skookum1 1489:Skookum1 1467:Skookum1 1460:Squamish 1392:Skookum1 1346:Skookum1 1323:Skookum1 1168:Muskogee 1085:Squamish 1056:Kauffner 1044:Comment: 1017:official 1011:WP:TITLE 973:Kauffner 967:I found 957:Kauffner 853:Skookum1 812:Skookum1 697:Squamish 688:Squamish 650:français 642:endonyms 207:180 days 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2963:my edit 2941::Online 2870:checked 2835:my edit 2798:Support 2733:Comment 2654:COMMENT 2607:correct 2532:Sta7mes 2510:Mi'kmaq 2459:Opppose 2357:Comment 2174:Sta7mes 2025:ENGLISH 1941:English 1930:reflect 1869:and at 1753:Lil'wat 1745:English 1592:is the 1545:Suqʷabš 1487:either. 1383:Nisga'a 1379:Gitxsan 1363:Palouse 1306:Comment 1160:Tsalagi 1143:Comment 1116:Support 1007:Support 994:ukexpat 986:Support 941:Support 794:Ojibway 792:is not 784:is not 774:Mi'kmaq 746:UPDATE: 646:monster 644:; this 554:on the 443:on the 252:B-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3117:Geec22 2849:nobots 2805:bd2412 2757:recent 2751:-: --> 2741:Dakelh 2739:-: --> 2713:mostly 2694:-: --> 2621:DAMAGE 2598:Sto:lo 2564:almost 2560:either 2556:scores 2548:Sto:lo 2540:Mi'maq 2476:Oppose 2408:Oppose 2311:either 2307:WP:OWN 2299:WP:OWN 2264:should 2220:-: --> 2212:-: --> 2206:should 2154:resist 1970:WP:UCN 1966:Oppose 1918:WP:UCN 1910:policy 1846:Oppose 1809:Sto:lo 1598:within 1174:, and 1172:Lakota 790:Ojibwe 636:, and 527:Canada 518:Canada 468:Canada 407:Canada 258:scale. 126:Google 2578:twice 2574:other 2536:wrong 2523:valid 2391:think 2280:Comox 2055:twice 2012:are). 2000:those 1914:WP:UE 1863:Reply 1783:? — 1656:Xoloz 1541:Sʼabš 1507:-mesh 1409:kwami 1359:Palus 1074:Yes, 949:1,260 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3121:talk 2874:true 2765:talk 2722:talk 2679:this 2643:talk 2635:talk 2554:and 2484:talk 2467:talk 2448:talk 2424:talk 2416:most 2410:per 2399:talk 2340:talk 2323:them 2286:and 2216:and 2191:talk 2084:talk 2073:and 2048:else 1968:per 1896:talk 1884:your 1873:and 1854:talk 1833:talk 1804:does 1768:talk 1751:and 1687:. 1660:talk 1606:talk 1568:talk 1553:talk 1535:and 1515:talk 1493:talk 1471:talk 1449:must 1413:talk 1396:talk 1388:does 1381:and 1350:talk 1327:talk 1269:talk 1237:talk 1210:talk 1184:talk 1156:Diné 1132:talk 1122:and 1118:per 1101:talk 1093:most 1060:talk 1035:talk 1031:Ds13 998:talk 992:. – 988:per 977:talk 965:P.S. 961:talk 951:for 931:talk 899:talk 857:talk 816:talk 803:that 780:; ; 754:talk 734:talk 726:most 706:talk 702:Ds13 676:talk 658:talk 619:talk 604:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3057:RfC 3027:to 3017:to 3007:to 2997:to 2987:to 2977:to 2899:RfC 2861:to 2780:. 2709:now 2530:re 2373:not 2178:not 2162:did 2158:are 2099:web 2009:not 1993:and 1936:in 1850:IJA 1590:Sat 1586:old 1445:SAY 1424:YOU 1377:. 1292:. 844:why 807:all 798:all 546:Mid 435:Mid 342:??? 176:TWL 3135:: 3123:) 3070:. 3065:}} 3061:{{ 2912:. 2907:}} 2903:{{ 2847:{{ 2843:}} 2839:{{ 2767:) 2724:) 2671:→ 2662:→ 2645:) 2616:do 2596:, 2592:, 2550:, 2546:, 2542:, 2500:, 2486:) 2469:) 2450:) 2426:) 2401:) 2342:) 2332:he 2193:) 2112:— 2086:) 2061:, 2036:IS 1945:— 1898:) 1877:, 1856:) 1835:) 1825:is 1815:, 1770:) 1673:→ 1662:) 1635:. 1608:) 1570:) 1555:) 1517:) 1495:) 1473:) 1463:}} 1457:{{ 1438:, 1434:, 1415:) 1398:) 1352:) 1329:) 1271:) 1239:) 1212:) 1186:) 1170:, 1166:, 1162:, 1158:, 1134:) 1103:) 1083:. 1062:) 1037:) 1029:-- 1000:) 979:) 969:67 955:. 943:. 933:) 916:– 912:→ 901:) 893:. 878:. 859:) 832:IS 818:) 788:, 756:) 736:) 708:) 678:) 660:) 621:) 606:) 471:: 405:, 401:, 308:, 205:: 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 3119:( 3102:) 3098:( 3085:. 3078:. 2927:. 2920:. 2812:T 2763:( 2720:( 2641:( 2633:( 2512:/ 2482:( 2465:( 2446:( 2422:( 2397:( 2338:( 2189:( 2082:( 1894:( 1852:( 1831:( 1819:/ 1811:/ 1766:( 1658:( 1604:( 1566:( 1551:( 1513:( 1491:( 1477:` 1469:( 1411:( 1394:( 1348:( 1325:( 1267:( 1235:( 1208:( 1182:( 1130:( 1099:( 1058:( 1033:( 1027:. 996:( 975:( 959:( 945:0 929:( 897:( 855:( 814:( 752:( 732:( 704:( 674:( 656:( 617:( 602:( 578:. 558:. 447:. 350:. 264:: 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index