Wikipedia

Talk:Bde Maka Ska/Archive 1

< Talk:Bde Maka Ska
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Oncamera in topic Pronunciation confusion
Archive 1

photo

I have a strong feeling that the photo on this page is of Lake Harriet and not Lake Calhoun.

Wreck-It Ralph Reference

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I heard that Sergeant Calhoun is named after the lake 67.209.71.36 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. Can anyone here resolve the spelling of the Dakota name? Here is a reliable source with a photo of the sign (MPR News). Thank you in advance for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Name change

Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Until a name change is official, "Lake Calhoun" is still the primary legal name of the lake, and should not be removed unless the name does change. 108.171.131.180 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree but whose authority are we counting as 'official'? Bde Maka Ska has the recognition of one entity (the Minneapolis Parks Board) while Calhoun is (I think?) still in use by the City of Minneapolis and the USGS (and maybe the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County, though I'm not sure if they maintain placename databases or defer to local or national entities). Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As Peter Cox of Minnesota Public Radio explained, a name change would be a multi-step process. The Park Board took one step. Wikipedia notes, I think correctly, that both names are now in use. Jonathunder (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: as of now, it's been approved by the Park Board, County Board, and MN DNR. From the 1/18/18 MN DNR press release: "The DNR’s decision means the lake name change will become official in Minnesota when the DNR’s approval is officially recorded by Hennepin County and published in the State Register. Hennepin County commissioners voted to seek the name change Nov. 28." so it should be official for Minnesota soon. The release also says "The DNR will submit the Hennepin County resolution, along with the state approval, to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, which will approve or deny the name change for federal use." Neuhausr (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The name has now been restored by the relevant state agency, the MN DNR. Is there consensus to move the page to reflect the change yet, or is there a desire to wait until the Board on Geographic Names makes its decision at the federal level? —Collint c 05:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The name is not official at the national level and there is not even consensus that the state acted appropriately. It should remain as Lake Calhoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The City of Minneapolis has changed all signboards referring to the lake to Bde Maka Ska, I believe that now is the right time to move the page Pyrocracy (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can back-up Pyrocracy that the signs have all been changed. I'd be happy to take some photos if we think they'd add value. = paul2520 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
What the city and state think don't matter - until it passes the federal level, the name is not official. ~Darth StabroPalantír 20:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The park board, county, and state actually do matter, as at those levels, the name change is official. Disharmony between naming authorities is not unheard of. That said, it's worth examining the history of the page Denali, another, higher-profile case of a European name being reverted to an indigenous one. I believe what happened there was that Alaska's naming board approved the change to Denali (from Mt. McKinley) in the 1970s but the article was titled Mount McKinley until the name was changed at the federal level (via presidential order, with approval of the Dept of the Interior) in 2015. With that as precedent, I don't think it's unwise to wait until the BGN has had their say but we also don't need to minimize the current status of "Bde Maka Ska"–that it is, at the state and local levels, official. —Collint c 21:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between Lake Calhoun and Mount Denali. For the latter, the locals have used Mount Denali for a long time, but the Minneapolis community is still split in their usage of Lake Calhoun or Bde Maka Ska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to add something to the article to reflect that some people do not like the name change, go for it. However, these people's opinions should not overrule the facts that three governmental levels have approved the name change and the signs have changed. I think these latter facts are what should drive the article's usage of the names Lake Calhoun and Bde Maka Ska. --Neuhausr (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that it is not changed at the Federal level. Remember, the MN legislature never discussed the name change (as is required by state law to change the name). It should still remain as Lake Calhoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You are incorrect about the state process--see Minnesota Statute 83A.03: "When the commissioner of natural resources shall have given a name to any lake, stream, place, or other geographic feature within the state, such name shall be used in all maps, records, documents, and other publications issued by the state or any of its departments and political subdivisions, and such names shall be deemed the official name of such geographic feature." Given the DNR Commissioner's approval, it seems quite clear that 1) the state process is completed and 2) the name change is official. -- Neuhausr (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re all wrong and fighting about petty shit. It’s called Bde Maka Ska and has been legally and correctly changed at the state level. Both Google and Apple Maps have reflected the change and the federal government simply needs to rubber stamp what’s already been decided. Vanbis01 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's petty shit, then leave it as Lake Calhoun. It was not done legally and correctly. Google and Apple maps were wrong to change it. See: 83A.05 CHANGING AND GIVING NAMES TO WATER BODIES. Subdivision 1.Applicability. A name of a lake, river, stream, or other body of water may be given or changed under sections 83A.05 to 83A.07 except that a name which has existed for 40 years may not be changed under the provisions of sections 83A.05 to 83A.07.

You are not citing the correct statute for what happened, it was done under the authority of MS 83A.02--see the DNR's Names of Geographic Features Order. --Neuhausr (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The statute I cite is what prohibits the name change to begin with. And just to clarify, I'm not in disagreement that Calhoun was a bad guy, but these actions are the kind of thing that drove people to vote for 45. Maybe you don't think that's a good reason for fighting to keep the "old" name on Wikipedia, and that's fine, but absent a legal process, we have no other choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.226.221 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating unrelated things. Regarding the statutes, the part which says "may not be changed under the provisions of sections 83A.05 to 83A.07" does not relate because it was changed under authority of 83A.02.--Neuhausr (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: the February 8 minutes of the Board on Geographic Names have the following info which doesn't necessarily impact whatever the decision surrounding this page's name will be, but are nonetheless useful context:
"With regard to the aforementioned proposal to change the name of Lake Calhoun in Minnesota to Bde Maka Ska, the BGN Secretariat has begun to receive comments from interested parties. At least one correspondent has noted that a poll of landowners in close proximity to the lake indicates that 85% are opposed to the change. The lake is in a park managed by the City of Minneapolis. Park signs have already been replaced and the new name now appears on Google Maps. There have also been a number of news articles on the issue. Other names have been suggested to BGN staff but none have been formally proposed. A lawsuit has been filed against the county commissioners and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, stating that the county and State have ignored a State law that prohibits the renaming of a lake that has been named for at least 40 years. Yost [the Executive Secretary, U.S. Board on Geographic Names/Domestic Names Committee] noted that the State law is not binding on the Federal Government."
The minutes also note that, as of February 8, "Yost responded to a letter submitted by U.S. Senator Tina Smith (Minnesota) in which she expressed her support for the proposal to change the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis to Bde Maka Ska. This proposal has not yet been received by the BGN, but the change has been approved by the Hennepin County Commissioners and by the Minnesota State Names Authority and the packet is forthcoming." Hope this is useful! —Collint c 20:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Good god y’all are nutcases. The lake has been renamed. And now this page is misleading. If anything, it should be renamed with a section commenting on the fact that it is still referred to as Calhoun at the federal level. To willfully ignore the state and local communities is ridiculous. This is supposed to be a place where people can go for accurate information, and this is not. Vanbis01 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Case in point, the first line of this article is “Lake Calhoun, also known as Bde Maka Ska” which is inherently wrong. If someone were to visit Minneapolis and look at a park board map or city map or signage, they would never find it. Because it doesn’t exist. Vanbis01 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The page still says "also known as Bde Maka Ska" and anyone in the city will tell a visitor who doesn't already know the situation how to find Lake Calhoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:E3DC:4E26:2D73:407:C59:AF3C (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Both "Calhoun" and "Bde Maka Ska" are official names at different levels, and both are in use. Signs around the lake say "Bde Maka Ska" as that is now the legal name of the park containing it. We should continue to use both names, or just "the lake" in the body of the article when that can be used without ambiguity. Jonathunder (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just checking in here. Honest question, how have name changes been dealt with before? It seems like the name officially recognized by the majority of jurisdictions should apply. I also understand the importance of commonly used names. On the flip side, Wikipedia’s own policies state that extra weight should be given to reliable resources published after the official change to determine which name to use. In my research, nearly all articles published by government, MPR, WCCO, KARE, etc. after 1/18/18 have used Bde Maka Ska, with reference to the former name in parenthesis). Where do you draw the line? I think waiting for the feds to issue an opinion or a lawsuit from an advocacy group before changing doesn’t do anyone any good. Vanbis01 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A majority of jurisdictions doesn't matter when the only one that actually matters (federal) has yet to make a ruling. All of your sources cite local jurisdictions that didn't have the authority to change the name. That's why they aren't relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Maps calls it Bde Maka Ska. Rename the page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Maps is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:E731:752:14B7:CF46:FC5:5DBB (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that the federal government's opinion is the only one that matters? It's not a National Park or federal property, so I would think the managing jurisdiction would matter more, in this case the Minneapolis Park Board, supported by the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota. Vanbis01 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the federal government's opinion does matter more necessarily. Rather, I believe what people are pulling for is unanimity from various agencies and institutions regarding the name, and USGS is the final agency to have a say in the matter. (I imagine if they'd already given the go-ahead but for whatever reason the state of Minnesota hadn't weighed in yet, we'd be in much the same situation as we are now.) That said, consensus to change the name needn't rely on (or be required to wait for) every possible agency to make its proclamation. If local newsmedia are using Bde Maka Ska, and the city, county, parks, and state are as well, I think you could make a strong case that the name should be changed right now. —Collint c 17:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
A reasonable case could be made for a requested move, certainly. Jonathunder (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Do it, I will support the move. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago30 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Bde Maka Ska at this time, per the discussion below. Please note that what state or federal authorities have or have not officially changed the name of the lake is not the determining factor in what the title of the article will be on Wikipedia, per WP:OFFICIAL as noted by a number of editors who both favor and oppose the move here. The most important factors in determining the article title are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. On balance, editors below agree with the view that more recent secondary sources use the title Bde Maka Ska. In addition, while it is important to assume good faith, three of the five opposing the move here (and another who did not !vote) are IP editors in northern Germany who have few or no edits outside of this topic and make no reference to Wikipedia naming policies and guidelines. Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Lake Calhoun → Bde Maka Ska – Per discussion above Jonathunder (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While the official name at the state level does appear to have been changed, the official name at the federal level has not. Until that happens it's better to leave it where it is, as common usage probably still favors the current title as being the WP:COMMONNAME, as that takes time to change. Once the name is changed at the federal level, there will be a better argument to make the move at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This makes the vote 2-2, so there is no consensus on the "oppose" side yet. Also, let's keep the WP:WIKILAWYERING to a minimum - those of you who believe the US federal government has the right to make naming decisions in a city park are, of course, on very unsteady legal ground in making that legal claim. If we're going to get into dueling legal claims, though, there's this thing called the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution you might want to look into. Also, local usage is specifically part of the federal Bureau of Geographic Names standard for evaluating naming conventions, as evidenced in their document Principles, Policies and Procedures: Domestic Geographic Names on page 7: "The underlying principle of the BGN for establishing official geographic names and their applications is recognition of present-day local usage or preferences. Exceptions occur when local spoken or written usage is in conflict with specific BGN policy. Existing published names, names in legal documents, and names with historical significance are given strong consideration in cases where proposed names differ from current official names." Wikipedia should follow that same standard, as this US federal government document says we should. When a local geographic name exists in published and legal documents and reflects historical significance, we should give strong consideration in cases where those local "proposed" names differ from current "official" names. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll bite. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it constitute the supreme law of the land. And per the doctrine of Navigable servitude, the United States Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone would argue that Bde Maka Ska is a navigable waterway. It isn't nearly deep enough, wide enough, connected enough, have the proper bridge clearance, ...I could go on.Vanbis01 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • You are very wrong. The U.S. courts have interpreted "navigable waters" very broadly. Basically, if you can navigate it in a canoe, then it is most definitely a "navigable waterway" according to the courts: "courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test." [1] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Which clause of the U.S. Constitution gives federal laws authority over Wikipedia's application of WP:COMMONNAMES? —  AjaxSmack  01:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced," (emphasis in original). Local media outlets seem to be using the name Bde Maka Ska with regularity, with and without clarifying that the lake is also/formerly known as Lake Calhoun. WCCO [2], [3]; Star Tribune [4]; KARE [5]; Pioneer Press [6]; etc. ebbillings (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The city and state DNR never had the authority to change the name of the lake, per Minnesota statute as cited above. Since the name change was illegal, and the U.S. government which has the final authority has yet to rule, it must remain as Lake Calhoun until the U.S. government makes its ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — 194.94.136.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support. It seems that those who oppose the change are relying on loose arguments and emotional reasoning. Personal opinions aside, the name change was escalated through the proper channels, voted on and approved by the Minneapolis Park Board on May 3, 2017 (after using Bde Maka Ska as a secondary name since 2015) [7], the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on November 28, 2017 [8] and the Minnesota DNR on January 18, 2018 [9]. In addition, local media has since been using the name Bde Maka Ska, as pointed out above, and has done so consistently. Regarding legality, the Minneapolis Park Board, Hennepin County, and the DNR did nothing illegal or outside their purview and until a lawsuit is filed, which may or may not happen, we cannot dictate what is legal and what is not. Wikipedia is a resource for facts, not opinion.Vanbis01 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Ultimately, a lot of arguments against this pagemove seem to rely on notions that either a) the parks/city/county/state do not have the authority to enact name changes and/or this name change in particular or b) that the federal government's authority on names ought to be the be-all end-all authority to which we are beholden. Vanbis01 neatly summarizes why the first argument is not the case, and in the case of the second, we must recognize the subjective nature of this process, and of authority. Should we, for instance, listen to the majority of residents of the immediate lakefront area, who overwhelmingly support the lake's old name? Should their authority-by-proximity trump all other authorities? Should we listen to the parks/city/county/state, who favor Bde Maka Ska? Should we consider that because this nesting doll of governmental entities have each sided with Bde Maka Ska, they have authority by consensus and/or by statute? Do we have consensus if the federal BGN supports Bde Maka Ska? Do we favor the federal government's edict over the several other jurisdictions' if the BGN does not recognize Bde Maka Ska? On the last question, at least, I can offer that there is no hard and fast line drawn that a page's title must match its subject's federal name, considering the multiple extant pages where this is not the case. Thus, I contend that regardless of the federal BGN's decision and in consideration of park/city/county/state as well as printed newsmedia usage, there is a strong enough case to move the page to Bde Maka Ska. —Collint c 22:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, to be clear, the change I support is moving the page, beginning the lede with "Bde Maka Ska, also known as Lake Calhoun...", and updating references in the body of the article to Bde Maka Ska in places where it makes sense to (eg in the image caption: "Bde Maka Ska (center) from the air"). —Collint c 22:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Under Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines for cases like this, both names will be in bold at the beginning of the article and redirects will guide readers here no matter which name they search for, whatever the outcome of this move discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Wikipedia is a descriptive project. I don't seek to pretend that no one has ever called it Lake Calhoun or even that no one still is, only that the primary name for the lake has changed. In time, if the old name falls out of usage, we can edit the page's lede again to read "Bde Maka Ska (formerly known as Lake Calhoun)...". Erasing history is absolutely not what Wikipedia is about, nor is clinging to it in the face of change. —Collint c 16:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Diacritics

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Question to Jonathunder, does the proposed name change follow english characters or the Dakota language with accents as is displayed in some sources? Since the proposed purpose of the name change is to reflect the WP:COMMONNAME and the Wikipedia:Article titles is based on english how should this be reconciled with the renaming to a Dakota name? Would/should the term Lake or lake be used in the new article title? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(moved to separate section to answer) Sources appear to nearly uniformly spell Bde Maka Ska without diacritics in English. There are multiple ways to represent this in Dakota. Jonathunder (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Federal decision

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A tweet from Kate Beane (whose work is cited in this page) suggests that the Board on Geographic Names approved Bde Maka Ska at the federal level. Waiting on a published source either from newsmedia or the USGS/BGN to make the relevant changes to the page. —Collint c 02:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Bobamnertiopsis, this looks like the article you were waiting for! = paul2520 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) page for Bde Maka Ska cites the 6/21/18 decision. --Neuhausr (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, both refs are now used in the article. —Collint c 00:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Also" or "formerly"

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Many people are still improperly using the word "formerly" in the article. The Lake is also called Lake Calhoun. It's as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.76 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

While I agree both names continue to be used, so "also" is a better choice than "formerly" known as, it's not worth an edit war. Please discuss disagreements here. Jonathunder (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is very similar to the Denali article. Mt McKinley and Lake Calhoun are still used by many people. Those terms may not be "official" but they are quite common, and perhaps this article should follow the same format that is consensus at Denali. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck's edits look good to me. I'm quite satisfied. I think the difference with Mt. McKinley is that only non-Alaskans use that name, if I'm not mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.136.161 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably true about McKinley, however Denali isn't used universally by Alaskans either. Of the nine native language inhabitants only one actually pronounces it Denali. Those inhabitants could care less that it is officially Denali and will go on pronouncing/spelling it as they have for hundreds of years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I like the change, for it to be formatted just as Denali. Thank you, Fyunck, for the solution. oncamera 04:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, someone removed the parentheses as there is by consensus at Denali, but I'm just glad I recalled the solution of the Denali article. I hope it all works out since this is an article I just happened upon. Cheers to everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of parentheses edit, so that it stays consistent with the consensus at Denali and this talk page. If they wish to change it, they can bring the discussion here, but consensus says use the parentheses. oncamera 06:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not wild about the parentheses (they halt the flow of the sentence right as it's beginning in a way that commas would not) but if they're going to be kept, can they at least be combined with the IPA pronunciation guide parentheses so we don't end up with "),[2] ("? —Collint c 03:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we check with someone familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation if it's ok to combine the two? Otherwise, if it's cool with the MoS, I don't see why they can't be combined. oncamera 05:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, Milos Raonic combines pronunciation and birthday and it went through extensive scrutiny in becoming a wikipedia featured article. It also has a sup 5,6, and a right after the IPA stuff. We also have other featured article with parenths right up front like Cell nucleus, or Thylacine (which has parentheses all over the lead. So combining is perfectly valid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The pronunciation shown appears to be that of the local English speakers (doubtful that the Dakota pronunciation would have a diphthong in the first syllable, for example). That's understandable, but it'd be good to have an alternative (Dakota) pronunciation as well. Beyond my capabilities, though… —JLundell talk  14:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like the Dakota pronunciation to me. Here is Neil McKay who teaches Dakota at the U of MN pronouncing it: Bdé Makhá Ská -- "White Earth" oncamera 18:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is the English pronunciation. The Dakota pronunciation sounds similar, but it would be transcribed with different symbols because the sound system is very different. Based on Dakota language § Phonology, I guess the Dakota pronunciation would be transcribed as something like /bde maˈkʰa ska/. — Eru·tuon 21:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Official name change back to Lake Calhoun?

Latest comment: 5 years ago47 comments9 people in discussion

Effective April 29, 2019 - Back to Lake Calhoun. The name change wasn't official however now it is officially Lake Calhoun again. Please update to Lake Calhoun. http://www.startribune.com/bde-maka-ska-is-lake-calhoun-again-court-of-appeals-rules-monday/509215742/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8064:4D90:C068:33E9:5EEB:B7AB (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The name has not been legally or officially changed back to Lake Calhoun. In the court ruling, https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2019/OPa181007-042919.pdf, the court notes that "Although the lake name has now been changed, the DNR commissioner’s authority to exercise this power persists." To explain a bit more, much of the ruling concerns wdhether the plaintiffs could even sue because this name change is basically done and over. The court found that while the name change is a done deal, the lawsuit should not be dismissed because the DNR must be told not to use the same unauthorized procedures again. The relevant point here being that the name change is a done deal and the court did not order that it be changed back. Some editing is needed to get the page back to its state from before people started changing it erroneously.174.20.160.119 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The name used in prose should usually reflect the article title. Certainly the first bolded use should. As the article is titled Bde Maka Ska, that is what should be used in the article with reference to the fact that the official name is still Lake Calhoun. If the term "Lake Calhoun" is desired to be used throughout the article, then the title must have an RM discussion to see if it is warranted to have a move. This has been a controversial subject and I think a discussion should ensue before any attempted title move. If the RM results in a move to Lake Calhoun, then it should also say (also known as Bde Maka Ska), which is how the last discussion ended (except in reverse). For all we know, the State Supreme Court will change it again or perhaps the State Legislature will step in and change it. A lot of "maybes" out there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Save Lake Calhoun, Appellant, v. Sarah Strommen, et al., Respondents

III

The DNR commissioner lacks authority pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 83A.01-.07 to change a lake name which has existed for 40 years. Having determined that it was error to dismiss the petition for writ of quo warranto petition, this court next will analyze the statutory interpretation of chapter 83A because the issue is a purely legal matter rather than a factual issue. Sviggum, 732 N.W.2d at 320 (“[T]he court has exercised varying amounts of discretion in determining how to proceed on quo warranto petitions.”) (citing Rice, 488 N.W.2d at 244). The parties, also, thoroughly briefed and orally argued the issue of the statutory interpretation.

“Our primary goal in statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the [l]egislature.” Swanson v. Brewster, 784 N.W.2d 264, 284 (Minn. 2010). Within this goal, Minnesota courts must construe the statute to give effect to all its provisions when possible. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018). Further, “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999).

“When interpreting a statute, we first look to see whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). A statute is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Verhein, 917 N.W.2d at 102. If the intent of the language is clear from the plain and unambiguous language, then this court gives the effect to the language without considering other principles of statutory interpretation. Id. When addressing statutory ambiguity, we may consider the canons of interpretation contained in Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2018). Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing that the canons of interpretation at Minn. Stat. § 645.08 are used to determine “the plain meaning of a statute without first concluding that the statute was ambiguous”). Within this framework, we examine chapter 83A to determine whether the DNR exercised authority in accordance with the statutory scheme. Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Minn. 2013) (“Multiple parts of a statute may be read together so as to ascertain whether the statute is ambiguous.”).

Appellant argues the DNR lacks authority to change a lake name which has existed for 40 years. Appellant contends the DNR’s interpretation of chapter 83A “exceeds [the DNR commissioner’s] authority relating to the renaming of lakes whose names have been in existence for more than 40 years.” This court recognizes the particular importance of assessing the authority provided to the DNR because administrative agencies only possess the powers provided to them by the legislature. Hubbard, 778 N.W.2d at 318. “An agency’s statutory authority may be either expressly stated in the legislation or implied from the expressed powers.” Id. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes a reluctance to find implied authority. Id. at 321. “[A]ny enlargement of powers by implication must be fairly drawn and fairly evident from the agency’s objectives and powers expressly given by the legislature. ” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Peoples Nat. Gas Co. v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 369 N.W.2d 530, 534 (Minn. 1985)).

  • 8 Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 83A.02, the legislature provided powers and duties to the DNR commissioner related to state geographic features. The DNR commissioner’s powers and duties in this context are:

(1) determine the correct and most appropriate names of the lakes, streams, places and other geographic features in the state, and the spelling thereof by written order published in the State Register. Name designations are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14 and section 14.386 does not apply; (2) pass upon and give names to lakes, streams, places, and other geographic features in the state for which no single, generally accepted name has been in use; (3) in cooperation with the county boards and with their approval, change the names of lakes, streams, places, and other geographic features, with the end in view of eliminating, as far as possible, duplication of names within the state; (4) prepare and publish an official state dictionary of geographic names and publish the same, either as a completed whole or in parts, when ready; (5) serve as the state representative of the United States Geographic Board and cooperate with that board to the end that there shall be no conflict between the state and federal designations of geographic features in the state. Minn. Stat. § 83A.02(1)-(5) (emphasis added). Once the DNR commissioner has given a name for a geographic feature, that “name shall be used in all maps, records, documents, and other publications issued by the state or any of its departments and political subdivisions, and such names shall be deemed the official name of such geographic feature.” Minn. Stat. § 83A.03.

The legislature also provided for giving and changing the name of water bodies pursuant to sections 83A.05-.07, but “a name which has existed for 40 years may not be changed under the provisions of sections 83A.05 to 83A.07.” Minn. Stat. § 83A.05, subd. 1. The name provided by the county board is the legal name of the water body. Minn. Stat. § 83A.06, subd. 6. But see Minn. Stat. § 83A.04 (recognizing a county board cannot change the name of “any lake, river, or other body of water without the written approval of the commissioner of natural resources endorsed on any resolution determining or fixing such name, which endorsement must be made on the same prior to recording with the county recorder”). The DNR contends that the 40-year limitation of Minn. Stat. § 83A.05, subd. 1, does not limit its authority but, instead, only limits the authority of county boards to exercise their authority to give or change the name of water bodies and that section 83A.02(1), functions separately from the county-board restrictions. This court is not persuaded.

The language providing powers and duties to the DNR commissioner pursuant to section 83A.02 cannot be read to permit the DNR’s broad interpretation. The DNR argues that its authority to act in this case is exclusively pursuant to section 83A.02(1). This statutory provision, however, can only mean what the DNR claims if read in isolation from the other provisions of the statute which—as our canons of statutory interpretation so dictate—we cannot do. See Schwanke v. Minn. Dep’t of Admin., 851 N.W.2d 591, 597 (Minn. 2014) (“We have long recognized that ‘[w]ords and sentences are to be understood ... in light of their context’ and are ‘not to be viewed in isolation.’ ”) (quoting Christensen v. Hennepin Transp. Co., 10 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn. 1943)). Instead, the explicit power to change a lake’s name is identified in section 83A.02(3). Section 83A.02(3) identifies the DNR commissioner’s authority “in cooperation with the county boards and with their approval, change the names of lakes, streams, places, and other geographic features.” (Emphasis added.)

  • 9 “When the [l]egislature uses different words, we normally presume that those words have different meanings.” Nelson v. Schlener, 859 N.W.2d 288, 294 (Minn. 2015). This presumption applies because the legislature used different words—within the same section—to grant authority in the DNR commissioner. When determining the plain meaning of a word in a statute that does not provide a specific definition, “we often consider dictionary definitions.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., 875 N.W.2d 289, 292 (Minn. 2016). The term “determine” means the DNR commissioner may “decide or settle” the name of a geographic feature, in contrast to the ability to “change” which means to take steps to make the name of a geographic feature different. Compare American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 509 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “determine” as “[t]o decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively”), with id. at 319 (defining “change” as “[t]o cause to be different”).

When a lake has “no single, generally accepted name[,]” then the DNR commissioner has the authority to “pass upon and give” a name to it. Minn. Stat. § 83A.02(2). The situation before this court involves a lake already named; the DNR commissioner’s sole legislative authority to change a lake’s name occurs when it cooperates and receives approval from the county board. Id. (3). County boards engage in the process to change names of water bodies within the limitations of sections 83A.05-.07, which prohibit the change of a name that has existed for 40 years. Minn. Stat. § 83A.05, subd. 1. Construing section 83A.02(3) within the context of sections 83A.05-.07 clarifies the ability of county boards to cooperate with the DNR commissioner to change the names of water bodies. The lake was known as Lake Calhoun for 40 years when the DNR commissioner changed the name.

The DNR argues the plain meaning of the statute demonstrates the prohibition on county boards changing the names of water bodies does not apply to its ability to act pursuant to section 83A.02. The rules of statutory construction as we have outlined above do not support the DNR’s argument. The DNR’s statutory construction would render superfluous the language of sections 83A.05-.07 to permit county boards to change the names of water bodies. That is, if the language “except that a name which existed for 40 years may not be changed under the provisions of sections 83A.05 to 83A.07”—and all the procedures outlined by the legislature for so changing a lake name—can be ignored by the DNR commissioner, such a result would render this portion of the statute superfluous. Minn. Stat. § 83A.05, subd. 1. As noted above, we are not to so interpret language of a statute to be “superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral, 598 N.W.2d at 384. Our interpretation of the DNR commissioner’s authority to change lake names requires cooperation with county boards as provided under sections 83A.05-.07. Accordingly, we conclude that the DNR lacks authority to change a lake’s name which has been in existence for 40 years. Because the plain meaning of the statute resolves the question of the DNR’s authority pursuant to section 83A.02, we need not consider legislative history. Laase, 776 N.W.2d at 435 n.2 (“In the absence of a finding of ambiguity, we do not resort to legislative history to interpret a statute.”). However, we recognize that the legislative history related to chapter 83A is consistent with our plain meaning interpretation. See Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 604 (Minn. 2012); In re of Qwest Corp., 918 N.W.2d 578, 587 (Minn. App. 2018); Appeal of S.H. R.G. for Northstar Adoption Assistance, 907 N.W.2d 680, 686 (Minn. App. 2018).

In 1925, the legislature created “[a]n act providing for a method for changing the name of, or giving a name to, any lake, river, stream or other body of water, wholly within the boundaries of this state.” 1925 Minn. Laws ch. 157, §§ 1-6, at 146-48 (codified at Mason’s Minn. Stat. §§ 751-2 to -7 (1927)). This statutory scheme, functionally, contains the same procedure in sections 83A.05-.07. Compare id. (recognizing the historical statutory scheme), with Minn. Stat. §§ 83A.05-.07 (recognizing the modern statutory scheme). This historical language also recites that “no name of any lake, river, stream or other body of water, which name ha[d] existed for forty (40) years shall be changed under the provisions of this act.” 1925 Minn. Laws ch. 157, § 1, at 146. The legislature provided no scheme for changing a lake’s name which has existed for 40 years.

  • 10 In 1937, the legislature amended the section after creating the state geographic board.11 1937 Minn. Laws ch. 63, §§ 1-6, at 108-09 (codified at Mason’s Minn. Stat. §§ 128-2 to -6 (Supp. 1938)); 1937 Minn. Laws ch. 35, §§ 1-5, at 68-70 (amending Mason’s Minn. Stat. §§ 751-2 to -4, and 751-7 (1927)). The state geographic board possessed the same duties as the DNR commissioner—including “[t]o determine the correct and most appropriate names of the lakes, streams, places, and other geographic features in the state, and the spelling thereof.” Compare 1937 Minn. Laws ch. 63, § 2, at 108 (recognizing the historical statutory scheme), with Minn. Stat. § 83A.02 (reflecting the modern statutory scheme). However, the state geographic board, in 1937, was included as a party that may petition the county boards in the same manner as the 15 legal voters in the county where the water body existed.12 1937 Minn. Laws ch. 35, § 4, at 69-70.

This statutory scheme remained relatively unchanged until its recodification in 1990 to Minn. Stat. §§ 83A.05-.07.13 See Minn. Stat. §§ 83A.01-.04, 378.01-.07 (1988); 1990 Minn. Laws ch. 391, art. 8, §§ 7-9, at 693-95. The recodification of sections 378.01-.06 into chapter 83A tied the two schemes in a logical manner. See Minn. Stat. §§ 83A.01-.07 (1990). The historical nature of chapter 83A from 1925 supports a reading of the statutory scheme which, unambiguously, denies authority for the DNR to change the name of a lake which has existed for 40 years. The DNR’s assertion that its authority permits changing a lake name is not expressed, or fairly drawn or fairly evident from the powers delegated to it within the statute’s context. The fair limit on the DNR’s authority is determined by linking its ability to change the name of water bodies when cooperating with county boards pursuant to sections 83A.05-.07 pursuant to the plain meaning of the statute and the statute’s legislative history. Accordingly, the DNR’s action to change the lake’s name exceeded its authority provided pursuant to chapter 83A.

DECISION

Appellant presents a sufficient claim for ongoing exercise of power by the DNR and so the district court erred in denying the writ of quo warranto pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). We have addressed the merits of the DNR commissioner’s purported authority to change lake names existing for 40 years and found no authority permits this action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Save Lake Calhoun.

Reversed and remanded.

Save Lake Calhoun, Appellant, v. Sarah Strommen, et al., Respondents., No. A18-1007, 2019 WL 1890576, at *7–10 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019) Koncurrentkat (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to say something with all this typing???? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Just felt the actual opinion should be here to be read in its entirety. Will shorten the discussion process. Koncurrentkat (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, but what discussion? Is someone requesting a move of the article or just the addition of a paragraph explaining the situation? The prose should fit the article title, but the title could always move if enough editors want the change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Lol, thanks for your approval. Koncurrentkat (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I included information pertaining to the fact that officially, the federal name is Bde Maka Ska. I removed "officially" from "officially known as Lake Calhoun" from the opening lead because that is incorrect. oncamera 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be commonly known as Lake Calhoun. Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"Commonly" is pushing a non-neutral point of view. Using the word "also" keeps it neutral. There are previously arguments on this page about the way to best present it. Therefore, I shall revert it back to the neutral version. Thanks, oncamera 03:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thats fair Koncurrentkat (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Both names are in use and Wikipedia should list both at the start, without parenthesis or other prescriptive indicators. Jonathunder (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#BGN, the federal names for geographical locations should be the prominent name and Calhoun remain in the parenthesis, even reverting back to the agreed upon language once this is settled. The lake is still known as Bde Maka Ska on a federal level, the MPRB owns the land around the lake and will not change the signage. They are also in charge of the parkways and are planning on changing Calhoun Parkway to Bde Maka Ska parkway. The Attourney General and the DNR have petitioned the MN Supreme Court to reverse the decision and the MN House has already passed an amendment to keep the name Bde Maka Ska. The outcome, one way or another, is that the name is and will be Bde Maka Ska. Therefore, the article should reflect that "Lake Calhoun" is not on any sort of equal ground with the federally and locally recognized names by the organizations and departments in charge of it. oncamera 05:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That's all interesting original research and your crystal ball may tell you what the MN Supreme Court will say, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Both names are regarded as correct by different legal standards and both are in use, and the article should not proscribe one. There's nothing in the link you gave about using parenthesis when there is more than one name in use. Jonathunder (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Jonathunder, Minnesota Supreme Court or Minnesota State Legislature are outcome determinative on this issue and have yet to determine the issue. Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I also concur with Jonathunder, both names need to have representation until this is properly settled. Anything else is just speculation or personal preference. -- Dane talk 20:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Courts are not executive. The DNR has not enacted the ruling, as evident by their information page on the lake, and is within the window to consider an appeal. The name will change if the DNR does not appeal (see here). The name is not Lake Calhoun in any legal sense. It remains at this moment Bde Maka Ska at all levels. If the name is changed to Calhoun at the local level, it will remain Bde Maka Ska at the federal level. Extensive discussion has resulted in consensus that the page name and primary name used in the article will follow the federal name. Extensive discussion has also come to a consensus on parentheses usage. Call me FW August (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources to back up the information I posted earlier DNR taking Bde Maka Ska name fight to MN Supreme Court, Minneapolis park board votes to stand behind Bde Maka Ska, House approves re-renaming ‘Lake Calhoun’ to ‘Bde Maka Ska’; DNR plans to appeal court decision, Park board member intends to introduce ordinance to change name of Lake Calhoun Parkway to Bde Maka Ska Parkway, U.S. Official: Bde Maka Ska Is The Recognized Name At Federal Level. I agree with Call me FW August, extensive discussion has gone on this talkpage has come to a consensus on parenthesis usage. There is also strong consensus amongst the local governments and organizations to continue to use Bde Maka Ska. oncamera 10:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No one is proposing to move the page or change the order of names. We simply think policy requires listing both names currently in use, without editorializing. Jonathunder (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy supports your opinion? The former name is not on equal level with the federally recognized name. Local organizations in charge of the location, governments and media outlets all continue to use Bde Maka Ska. The name you support can continue to be in parentheses until the issue is formally resolved since the ruling is currently being appealed. Otherwise, it's much too soon to treat the former name as anything other than such. oncamera 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'll add that the court didn't say it had to go back to being called Lake Calhoun (per MN court: DNR didn’t have power to change Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska). The judgement in favor of Save Lake Calhoun wasn't on the question of the name. It was on the question of the AUTHORITY of the DNR to change the name. It ruled only on the question of whether the DNR (and other government bodies) had the authority to change the name. Therefore, even with the court decision, the name is still Bde Maka Ska until another court case is brought into district courts to revert back, after the MN Supreme Court sees the case. It's much too soon to treat the former name as anything other than such. oncamera 17:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
What policy requires we don't editorialize? One of our fundamental pillars: WP:NPOV. Jonathunder (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the facts are there's not even a court ruling reverting the name of the lake. You are supporting the editorializing of this article by removing the word "formerly" in "formerly known as Lake Calhoun", because it is not known as Lake Calhoun in any legal sense. The Save Lake Calhoun folks must wait until after MN Supreme Court hears the appeal to open a new case with the districts courts in order to have the name changed to Lake Calhoun. Should I edit out the editorializing that has been done by returning the word "formerly" per your own request? Otherwise, it is indeed violating NPOV by making the name "Lake Calhoun" seem as though it has legal bearing as it currently stands. oncamera 21:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with oncamera. Facts, citation, explanation, and long history of discussion on this talk page support the wording and style of the title and opening sentence at this time. The opening line mentions both the current legal name at all levels of government, as well as the former legal name which is still a name commongly in use. The opening line is accurate and neutral, providing the current legal name, Bde Maka Ska, first and acknowleging Lake Calhoun as also a name. I would ask those who propose changing the wording to back up their position with the same, and clearly explain how they believe whatever facts, policies, or disussions support their opinion. Posting curt, unspecific opinions, like simply stating we shouldn't editorialize is not helpful or constructive. What do you think is editorializing? Why? I request useful, specific, constructive answers to these questions so that a resolution to the alleged neutrality violations can be achieved.I do not think jonathunder's talk entry sufficiently explains the reason for the maintenance template, however I for one will wait for more information before removing it or proposing it removed. Call me FW August (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies more on common usage than which name is "legal" and it does not take a position on which name is correct. Take a look at any number of articles about places with more than one name, including hotly disputed ones (cf. Derry, Liancourt Rocks). They do not put the other name in parenthesis to denote it's deprecated. They simply report usage. This article does not currently follow NPOV or standard style, hence the disputed tag. I understand Calhoun was a bad man who had no connection to Minnesota, but Wikipedia is not the place to right that wrong. As long as both names are used, Wikipedia will document that. Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Your comment from the RFC: "Support. While I was initially undecided, Ebbillings has given the best policy based argument so far. Reliable sources since the official name change by the body that owns the lake overwhelmingly use Bde Maka Ska, making that the new common name. Jonathunder (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)" Ebbillings argument still stands so it's hard to understand why you placed that template on this page. oncamera 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Bde Maka Ska is the new common name, but Calhoun is also still in use. Like many places, it has more than one name, which we should list in the lede, without parenthesis to denote which one we like. Jonathunder (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So Bde Maka Ska is the common name and legal name. Calhoun is still technically the former name as well. Denali uses parenthesis after a very similar discussion took place on that page and is more comparable to what's occured with the name change here, than the two you listed. Anyway, the NPOV dispute template seems unwarranted after this discussion. oncamera 17:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
BMS is now the more common name, but that doesn't mean Calhoun disappeared from common use, nor do sources show that it did. Nor is this the same situation as Denali, which has only one current legal name. The tag is there because the article does not follow one of the fundamental policies here: NPOV. Jonathunder (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The court decision that is being appealed never invalidated Bde Maka Ska nor did it revert the name back to Calhoun. It was about whether or not the DNR had the authority to change the name. This lake has only one legal name. oncamera 18:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"This lake has only one legal name."[citation needed] You do realize the case is on this page, don't you? It invalidated the name change at the state level, meaning it remains Calhoun. More to the point is that both names are still in common use, and Wikipedia cannot deprecate one of them just because we don't like the man it was named for. That political struggle belongs somewhere else. Jonathunder (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the court case is on this page and it does not actually invalidate the name change if you can understand it. I included a source for that in a previous reply which explains it in common English: DNR did not have the authority and the Appeals Court did not decide anything in regards to the actual name change itself. The court case about who has authority to change the name, which is actually no one at this point according to the Appeals Court. That's why the MN Supreme Court has to decide because the issue involves the MN Constitution as well. DNR commissioner Sarah Strommen says this is the problem that must now be decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Regardless, the lake still has only one legal name at the moment because this court case was not about the name of the lake. oncamera 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Why would we accept the assertion of the party that lost the case in justifying an appeal as to what the law is? The court said no one short of the legislature had the authority to change the name at the state level, which means the name at that level did not change. But that's really all beside the central point: our policies here are what say how we should present the names in use, chief of which is the neutrality pillar. You haven't presented any reason for putting "Calhoun" in parenthesis that comports with a NPOV. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Courts are not part of the executive branch. Generally, including in this case, they do not act, they make decisions, which the other branches must either enact, or not pending appeals. Courts have means such as injunctions to compel action or inaction. The Court has not enjoined or in any way compelled the DNR to immediately change the name. I provided links at 03:32, 4 May 2019 to an article and the DNR page for the lake to show that the name has not changed. The name remains Bde Maka Ska at the state level. Thanks for expanding on your position for me. You brought up other arguments that I think merit discussion but this legal misconception seems to be a sticking point for everyone involved. I don't feel discussion is or will be productive until the legal situation is accurately understood by everyone choosing to take part here, or until any new arguments showing if what I've said is incorrect are given.Call me FW August (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If the legal decision seems murky, that's fine. It's not what governs the layout of the article here. Our policies do, and NPOV is quite clear: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis added.) There's no justification for making Calhoun, which remains a common name, parenthetical other than our editorial bias. Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was an act of compromise between differing sides whose squabbling was going nowhere. It's how I happened upon the article in the first place. I had seen that other articles had used the same technique to qualm editors with different pov's and offered it here as well. It worked fine and dandy till this latest court ruling. That was the reason for the wording and parenthetics, not some perceived bias. I simply thought I could help and it seemed the choice was accepted by all sides. The edit warring stopped. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I objected to making Calhoun parenthetical at the time as POV, but I was steamrolled. The fact that I don't edit war and others do doesn't mean the article has been accepted as NPOV. It's not. Jonathunder (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the name Lake Calhoun within parentheses in the opening line is appropriate. The parentheses do not need to be moved. They are not a violation of WP:NPOV. NPOV is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The parentheses have been in place for several months and were discussed on the talk page. They reflect the names in use proportionately. This formatting has been accepted during this time and I am hesitant to undo the formatting. To undo the formatting would increase the proportionality of one of the names in use without neutral justification. The only reason to do so that I can discern is due to a bias toward increasing the proportionality of that name. That would be a violation of NPOV. Many articles use similar formating, such as Denali, Devils Tower, and Black Elk Peak. The use of parentheses to reflect the proportionality of names appears to be an accepted neutral practice. The recent court ruling regarding the process of the name change is not a reason to increase the proportionality of the name Lake Calhoun. A court ruling is not an executive act. This court ruling did not change the name. The court has not enjoined or otherwise compelled the state DNR to change the name immediately. The DNR has not changed the name. The name will change if the DNR does not appeal, but it has not changed yet. (This has been a sticking point and if you disagree I insist that you cite proof. This is not a matter of opinion and I have cited proof to back up the facts I represent regarding the decision and its effect). The last name change then was when the BGN adopted the new name in July 2018. Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes states that when a name changes, weight to articles written after the name change should be given extra weight. While that pertains to titles, it is a solid guiding principle. Since the name change in 2018, mostly Bde Maka Ska has been used. Of note are some articles NOT pertaining to the name change using Bde Maka Ska, which is an excellent indicator that it is regarded by publications as the recognizable name and the one in common use. In fact, publications began this practice after the state name change. Right after the court ruling, there was a spate of articles using Lake Calhoun, both names, or avoiding either name when possible. As the court ruling is not a name change, these should be noted, but not given extra weight. Further, as the Current Events Templates page notes, "sources to breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies", such as the inaccurate reporting that the court changed the name, which is lacks authority to do. As noted, articles reporting ON the name change are in my opinion less indicative of what name is recognized and in common use that articles unrelated to the name change. It certainly is worth keeping an eye out for articles NOT having to do with the renaming, to see what name is used in those cases as a good indication of what name is expected by reliable sources to be recognized as the name in actual common use. Until such time,since the name is at all levels remains Bde Maka Ska as before, and more importantly since the use in publications still as before strongly supports Bde Maka Ska as the primary name, there is no neutral, unbiased reason to increase the proportionality of Lake Calhoun in the article by removing the parentheses.Call me FW August (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Because Call me FW August makes all valid points, which are long-standing points, I went ahead and removed the template per WP:UNDUE. The former name is given its due place in the article (in parenthesis) without editorizing it as though it is a commonly used name by the media, local & federal government, which even you, Jonathunder, agree with. oncamera 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well-meaning editorializing, which this is, still violates our NPOV policy. By putting one in parenthesis you are telling readers which name Wikipedia prefers. Jonathunder (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, you have contributed nothing new to the conversation so I can't see why you replaced the tag. Rather than removing the tag again and warring over who can remove and replace it faster I (speaking for myself) will wait for you or anyone else to offer something more constructive, new, or helpful. Anyone who looks can see you have made many contributions to the article. Right now though, you are simply expecting others to uncritically accept your opinion and acting provocatively. Let's not edit war. Let's all try to respond only when we have something constructive to add, and see where that gets us.Call me FW August (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"That's fine, but what discussion?" ~Fyunck(click) Haha, remember this statement? Koncurrentkat (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Koncurrentkat: Yeah lol, that was a few words back. Think how long this would have been if you hadn't posted the opinion right at the top. Maybe "War and Peace" length. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Probably shorter. Koncurrentkat (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


the name of the page needs to be reverted back to lake calhoun as that is the local legal name as of right now and untill the courts rule otherwise that is the name of the lake (https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/29/lake-calhoun-returns-after-appeals-court-says-state-overstepped-with-bde-maka-ska/) and 99% of local residents still call it lake calhoun and hell the entire area around the lake is named after calhoun so why are ignoring the reality of the situation here that the federal government over stepped its bounds and preemptively went along with the original change even though it hadn't gone through the proper channels and as such their change shouldn't be taken seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 0

@Willmac13: The court case did not actually revert the name in any way. Read the previous discussions and learn a little about how Wikipedia reaches consensus on issues before edit warring in the future. Thanks, oncamera 02:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Oncamera: actually it did change the name back to lake calhoun as the court of appeals ruled the board did not have the authority to rename the lake so as it stands right now in the state of minnesota which is where this lake resides it is known as lake calhoun just because the federal government changed it on there end doesn't mean that the name has changed and if the supreme court rules the same as the appeals court then the name will be calhoun forever and the federal government will be wrong and will have to revert it back as well and no the common term in the papers and news and the people of the city is still calhoun in fact the entire area around the lake is still called calhoun so your arguement of common use is at best misguided and at worst shows your true bias on the topic and keep your advice to yourself since you seem keen on lying to people who may visit this page looking for actual facts not this bias bs that it is currently


Restored previous version

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Just for transparency, I have restored the previous version before the edit war began as it better reflects the consensus on this talk page so far and MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:TITLE. Sasquatch t|c 07:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

why? the name of the lake has not changed from calhoun the name on the page is not the real name as of right now and it needs to be reverted back to what it should be and no 99% of people in the area still call it and the area surrounding it calhoun so make it right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Willmac13: If you read my message, I explained the reasons why. You will need to gain consensus to move the page back to Lake Calhoun, otherwise the current consensus is to go with what the USGS has called the lake while detailing the controversy around the naming of the lake in the body of the article. Feel free to find sources that expand on the controversy, but further edit warring around the lead sentence of the article and name of the lake will not be tolerated when the page protection expires unless I see a clear change in consensus. Sasquatch t|c 07:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sasquatch: ok what ever you say dictator or is it supreme leader? i guess a total of 13 people got to decide what the name of a lake is despite what the court rulings are and what the locals have to say i guess the bias reigns supreme even up to the administrators shame on you and this pathetic excuse for an educational webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Willmac13: You keep throwing around bad faith nastiness like "dictator" and "supreme leader" and you'll find yourself blocked faster than you can blink. We are pretty patient around here but there is a limit you are fast approaching. Please stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): am simply expressing the frustration in this lie that you seem to be parading around and refusing to fix im sorry that you don't like the tone but have shown great nastiness in refusing to fix your error and i will not be silent about this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 04:41, July 7, 2019 (UTC)
Please sign your posts with four tildas ~~~~ at the end. And I could care less what it winds up at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

On another note for transparency, I have blocked Willmac13 for repeated personal attacks both here and in other talk pages. Sasquatch t|c 21:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sasquatch: Typical censorship. The name should be changed back. It's the official name and BMS should be in parenthesis. Everyone here has agendas and are ignoring the truth. I expect nothing less. Hockeymikey (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Baloney. You don't seem to know how wikipedia works. You may have an agenda but I don't. In reality I could care less what the name is as I've never even been to the state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The official name on the federal level is Bde Maka Ska. Have a nice day reading the truth for once, oncamera 00:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Minnesota Court of Appeals in April 2019 ruled that the legal name of the lake remains Calhoun: https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/29/lake-calhoun-returns-after-appeals-court-says-state-overstepped-with-bde-maka-ska/

The Wikipedia entry for Lake Calhoun needs to be listed under the official name of the lake: Calhoun. Redirecting to another name propagates erroneous information. To help preserve its credibility, Wikipedia needs to correct the label to this entry to reflect the official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.56.186 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern spelling?

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Under "Historic names" section, the line "modern spelling Bdé Makhá Ská" is not supported by the source. Nothing about modern spelling, and the accents are there perhaps to only show the correct pronunciation. Anything more with that source other than Bde Maka Ska being the modern spelling is improper extrapolation. Perhaps there is a source that says the american indian spelling is Bdé Makhá Ská? But we'd need a source so I removed the spelling until that source is found. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to it at the moment but Beane's pages in Westerman and White (2012; ref 3 in the article) might be useful as I think that was where I got the info on Maḣpiya Wic̣aṡṭa's spelling/diacritics in modern Dakota orthography. —Collint c 22:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
That source, How to say Lake Calhoun's Dakota name: 'Bde Maka Ska', has audio and the modern spelling of the lake by the Dakota language professor at the University of Minnesota. That modern spelling is the standardize orthography of the Lakota and Dakota languages taught throughout the colleges. The standardized spelling produced by an expert in the language seems satisfactory as a reliable source. oncamera 23:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the spelling to the standardized spelling and added the dictionary as an additional source. Also specified it was standardized and not "modern" spelling to avoid confusion on what that means. oncamera 00:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I don't have that book but assume it's correct from your copy. I added that it is the standardized Lakota/Dakota spelling so readers don't assume it's the standardized English spelling. Thanks for the dictionary source addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation confusion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to this web page: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/10/14/bdemakaska-lake-calhoun the pronunciation of "Bde Maka Ska" involves accents on the second syllables of "Bde" and "Maka".

In this article, the accent marks occur at the beginning of the accented syllables in those two words.

Aren't accented syllables normally indicated by accent marks at the end of each acccented syllable?

This is confusing. 2601:200:C000:1A0:10CA:D225:70CC:E43F (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In the Historic names section, it's correctly accented as you stated in standardized Dakota, Bdé Makhá Ská. I don't know how to fix the IPA markup though to match.  oncamera  (talk page) 17:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bde_Maka_Ska/Archive_1&oldid=1146423465"