Talk:Coquitlam

Neighbourhoods

In the Maillardville article there is a list of Coquitlam neighbourhoods (which does not appear here and Ithink that page gets little traffic) which includes Hochaday and Coleman and a few others I have never heard of despite growing up in Coquitlam - could some of you other coquitlam folks check and tell me if you've heard of these places?

Photos

They are all of the Town Centre area - could some be added of the old part of town (I grew up knowing of it as Central Coquitlam, though I know now with the town centre that causes confusion - Austin Heights, Como Lake, Harbour Chines, Mundy Park, etc.) and Maillardville. It's a good chunk of the city, and not represented at all, the Town Centre new buildings are part, but only part, of the Coquitlam story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.44.98.34 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article does contain photos of Minnekhada and the Chimo Aquatic Centre, neither of which are in the Town Centre area. When the weather turns nicer, I'll get something from Maillardville and perhaps Como Lake, and I'll be putting up something from the renovated Sports Centre when it's completed. But neither Austin Heights nor Mundy Park, while significant parts of the city, make for particularly notable photos. That's the nature of how city articles tend to work; they show the City Hall or other notable civic buildings. Check out the large articles for Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton: nearly every photo is of their downtown areas, sports venues, and so forth. This article one of only 57 places in all of North America that is rated as a Good Article, and I'd hate to lose that because we added non-notable photos of suburban houses, strip malls, and a park that is nearly all trees. Greg Salter (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe photos could be added of Como Lake (you can get beautiful shots with the mountains in the background) or of Place des Arts and the Heritage area there, or even Riverview? It feels like the old part of Coquitlam is underepresented, and the photo of Chimo Pool doesn't currently show up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Coquitlam"

Why are people vandaliszing this article with a stinky fish (slime) quote? Coquitlam was named for the word in the coast salish language. after the latest vandal rv, i googled coquitalm and could find no other meanings than : little pink fish. If there is another meaning quote the proof here, or it will be a vandal rv. Moreover, this is an article on the CITY coquitlam, not the WORD. Coquitlam was named for the coast salish word. therefore if someone does find an alternative meaning for the word, that should go under a seperate article: Coquitlam.- Diskadia 22:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. I've seen many books and heard many people say it's smelly fish slime. You have to remember Google searches the most popular webpages first because of it's Pagerank system. One thing's for sure: We'd all like to think that the city means a little pink fish rather than having teenagers drive in yelling about slime Spyco 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Strahl, author of the "Greater Vancouver Book", says that Coquitlam stems from the Halkomelem word meaning 'stinking of fish slime' and attributes the following quote to B.C.-place-name experts Helen B. and G.P.V. Akrigg. "During a great winter famine,the Coquitlam people sold themselves into slavery to the more numerous and prosperous Kwantlen nation. The new slaves, while butchering large quantities of salmon for their masters, got covered with fish slime - hence the name." Apparently, that quote is from the Akrigg's book "British Columbia Place Names", though I haven't double checked Chuck's research. --Echinda 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who Chuck Strahl is, but if you go to The Greater Vancouver Book by Chuck Davis and click on the Coquitlam link, it says: "The name Coquitlam comes from the Salish word kwayhquitlum, referring to a small salmon, vital to the existence of the Coast Salish, the area’s first inhabitants." Yet if you go to "Place Names of the Lower Mainland", it does mention the stinky fish story. Because of this, I don't know how much of a reference The Greater Vancouver Book can be with these conflicting stories that don't reference each other. Therefore, I'm removing stinky fish from the article, and going with the reference from the actual Kwayhquitlum First Nation's web page, until anyone can provide a better, more-solid reference.Greg Salter (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to the Akrigg book and confirmed that "stinking of fish slime" is the meaning they give. Here is the quote: "Coquitlam, ... from the Halkomelem word meaning 'stinking of fish slime.' During a great winter famine,the Coquitlam people sold themselves into slavery to the more numerous and prosperous Kwantlen nation (whose name means tireless runners). The Coquitlams, while butchering large quantities of salmon for their masters, got covered with fish slime - hence the name." G. P. V. Akrigg and Helen B. Akrigg "British Columbia Place Names" (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997, 3rd Ed.) at p. 53. I haven't updated the article because of the controversy, but would suggest that since this is a fairly authoritative source perhaps the alternate meanings should both be given. Here is a link to the Google Books copy. Akrigg Page 53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.204.232 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But again, the Akrigg reference is the ONLY reference to this, which conflicts with the others, including that given by the Kwayhquitlum First Nation itself. I think it is reasonable to expect an independent corroborating reference before throwing information in the article which conflicts with those people who actually speak the language. Greg Salter (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zvrdVG44R-IC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=halkomelem+dictionary+coquitlam&source=bl&ots=R0NWHDntyu&sig=g-X09gp735HYAnsePTinwH7iI5k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R41kUszGJObAigLK2YGABQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=halkomelem%20dictionary%20coquitlam&f=false - Take a look at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.145.109 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mathew Good and his Band Should be Under Another Entry

Self evident. He has his own entry. He should merely be recorded as coming from here. As Woody Allen is listed as coming from New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you rephrase? I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. Greg Salter (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DMY

In referencing WP:DATERET, the article has since 2009 been using DMY. Looking at the article prior to my edit on 26 March 2015, the article used predominantly DMY, particularly in the reference section. In looking back at the article in January 2009, the same DMY format still exists providing the basis for the continuation of DMY. Mkdw^talk 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this site reliable?

According to this site https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/coquitlam/historic?month=11&year=2016 the November record high was broken last year. I'm not sure if I should add it to the climate section. Does anyone know if it's reliable? Socialistboyy (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)socialistboyy

It’s very much reliable 103.41.36.179 (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Record high from climate station.

It was broken in July 2009, but I'm not sure how to add another reference. Sorry. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/almanac_e.html?txtStationName=glenayre&searchMethod=contains&month=7&day=29&timeframe=4&period=30&startRow=1&StationID=834&month=7&day=29# Alex of Canada (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

In this situation it would be best to not use that data. Sometimes temperature data for certain days doesn't get vetted properly and thus doesn't get used for official purposes, like for declaring a new record. They passed over including this temperature in the 1981-2010 dataset and it wouldn't have been accidental. Air.light (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for a late reply. What reason would there be for them not to include it, if not a mistake? If the temperature reading is inaccurate, why would they keep it there? Alex of Canada (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

For them to not include that supposed record in the 1981–2010 dataset it may be because on that day the recording came, it wasn't verified by a human or there was some doubt about whether the recording was accurate. As for why they would keep it in the daily archive for that day, I don't know why they would keep it there. What I do know is that I have found a number of obvious errors over time in various Environment Canada climate charts. It could very well have to do with budget cuts and a lack of government funding. We should definitely defer to their judgement in this situation here in regards to this record in question. Air.light (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Is there a way to delete this talk page section? Alex of Canada (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

The standard protocol for these discussions is to just leave them as they are. They will eventually be archived by a bot. If anyone has a similar question in the future, they will be able to see what was discussed here. Air.light (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for bringing this back up, but I've seen other wikipedia pages do this, so would it really be a crime to edit the Coquitlam article? I know this is personal research, but I've seen it be 33 just this month. Alex of Canada (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada

Rather than lower our standards here we should fix those other pages up. If you contact Environment Canada and have them review and agree that their 1981–2010 climate normals are in fact incorrect and have them update the normals or you find a reliable secondary source then I will agree to the change. Air.light (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The pages for Vancouver and Toronto have extra sources from individual days, and those pages get more traffic. If they are a bad thing they'd get noticed there first. Edit: The only reason that record isn't added is because the averages probably ended before that temperature was recorded. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Alex of Canada

The core of my concern here is that the averages (normals period) ended after the temperature was recorded, not before. The averages go to 2010 and this record you would like to have added in is from 2009. The Vancouver and Toronto pages have extra sources added for records that came after the normals period, as in since 2010. If you have a special example I would be happy to see it. Air.light (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I know it says it's until 2010 but I believe they end during or at the end of 2007. Go to "station / element metadata" Extreme maximum and extreme minimum goes from 1970 to 2007. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good point. It's fine with me if you want to go ahead with this. Air.light (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I'm sorry if I sounded rude ever. Have a nice day. Alex of Canada (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2008 extreme weather section

@Alex of Canada: Do we really want this section in the article? Sure, that month feels significant to us who live in the lower mainland and on the BC coast but the event happened almost 10 years ago and to an outsider, our primary audience, I don’t think it’s really all that worthy of mentioning here. Yes, it’s at the outer limits of what can be experienced here for weather but it comes across to me as a way that locals brag about the weather they experience. What do you think? Air.light (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coquitlam evergreencentre.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Local indigenous tribe

@Premeditated Chaos: You added back to the article that Coquitlam is situated on the "traditional, ancestral and unceded territory" of a local Indigenous tribe. What is the difference between "traditional" and "ancestral", and could you please define "unceded" (in the context of this article)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See below; we edit conflicted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Unceded territory

Magnolia677 and Koiramainen, since you have attempted to remove the land acknowledgement from the article (twice now in the former case), let's discuss.

If you are not from Canada, especially from BC, you may not be aware that a great deal of the province - 95% in fact - is located on First Nations territory that was never ceded or signed away in any treaty. The land which Coquitlam is located on is part of that 95%, as asserted by the Kwikwetlem First Nation and acknowledged by the the City itself, its Heritage Organization, and its school district.

Magnolia, you argue that "whether the territory was "ancestral and unceded" 200+ years ago is irrelevant on this article". If the territory was unceded 200+ years ago, that means it's still unceded today - which is obviously relevant for the present day and therefore for the article. All the article does at present is state that. It would be an NPOV violation if our article attempted to assert some kind of moral or legal position about this, but it doesn't. It simply states a point of fact that is acknowledged by the relevant parties. Frankly, your insistence on removing it seems to me to indicate some kind of bias you may want to interrogate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Friend, that "how dare you question orthodoxy, you must be biased" trope only works in undergrad. Could you please answer my question above? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not do the condescending "friend" thing, okay buddy? :)

I have clearly defined unceded in my post here. Please advise if there is a specific portion of it that you feel is unclear. I do find it interesting that you claim to be questioning orthodoxy but you don't have a basic understanding of the concept being discussed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: A minor historical issue such as this land acknowledgement is inappropriate in the first paragraph, per MOS:OPEN. This aboriginal tribe is barely mentioned in the article, and the acknowledgement is political and biased. Two editors have removed it. Please stop edit warring and seek a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I am attempting to discuss, right here, on this talk page. The issue of First Nations land ownership is not a minor historical issue, and you continuing to refer to it as such implies that you have minimal understanding of the topic of Indigenous land claims in Canada. If you don't like it in the lead, move it elsewhere in the article rather than removing it on spurious grounds of "bias" (against whom?). If the band is minimally mentioned in the article, that is an indication that the history portion of the article requires expansion, not that the land claim is unimportant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, were you planning to continue this discussion? I don't see the situation as resolved, given that you removed part of the sourced content when moving it, and you still have not actually provided any input as to why you object to the phrasing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: The historic Indian tribes that lived in Coquitlam (not in a 1000 km area around Coquitlam) are certainly notable on this city article, though any of their historic beefs with the settler-colonists...well, it just taints the article with biased out-of-scope advocacy per WP:NPOV, and would be of more benefit on an article about the tribe. Likewise, Coquitlam is located within the Cascadia subduction zone, a true but trivial detail which--if added to hundreds of articles within the Cascadia subduction zone--would certainly not be an improvement. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Indian" is an outdated term when referring to the First Nations of Canada. You continue to suggest that the inclusion of the First Nations land claim is biased advocacy, but you have refused at every turn to articulate what about it is biased. Where is the bias in stating a fact that the City of Coquitlam itself acknowledges is true? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Most cities in Canada also list garbage pickup days on their website, but that doesn't mean it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Please take a moment to read WP:ONUS. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So you view basic information as to the ownership of land as comparable to garbage day. Given that, and your continued refusal to articulate what about the information is biased, it's clear you have no policy-based objection to the content, and your opposition is based purely on a desire not to acknowledge the existence of First Nations people (who are not "historic tribes", by the way, they're still alive). I am going to restore the original wording. Please do not remove it again unless you can actually articulate a legitimate policy-based reason to not include the information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Land acknowledgements are political and should not be included. CBC states they are " political statements meant to recognize First Nations, Inuit, and Métis territory", and CNN states they are "an attempt to address the past, present and future of a particular location as it relates to Indigenous peoples as well as to understand one's own place within it". Wikipedia articles should be neutral in tone and not a place for advocacy or persuasion. Moreover, there is nothing stopping an agenda-driven editor from including an identical land claim on hundreds of geographic articles. These should not be included on city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The wording in the article is a literal statement of fact - the territory has never been signed over or ceded under any treaty or other agreement. The fact that land acknowledgements are sometimes used in other contexts as political statements does not make the simple point of fact biased, undue, or otherwise unworthy of inclusion. Acknowledging the fact that the land is unceded may make some people uncomfortable, and certainly there are some complicated politics surrounding First Nations land claims and how to resolve them when the land is de facto considered a part of Canada. But the article does not get into those politics - it merely states the fact, accepted on all sides, that the territory was unceded by the people who occupied it until colonists showed up and took it over anyway. If the statement of fact can be sourced for other geographical articles, I see no reason why it should not be included in those articles. After all, 95% of British Columbia rests on unceded territory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly involved in this argument, but describing Coquitlam's land as 'unceded' has very clear negative and political connotations. I don't think it's the wisest to start a Canadian city's article with basically implying it's stolen land. I recognize it's all part of BC's history, but that should be reserved for the history section, not the lead. Koiramainen (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about First Nations land acknowledgement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Like Alsee, I feel a little uncomfortable closing this discussion, as people split evenly into yes and no votes despite their explanations suggesting that most people want mostly the same thing, so I'm not sure if some aspect of this conversation has gone over my American head. I am, however, going to go for it. If I screwed something up, I'll happily revert upon request.

There is a consensus that Coquitlam's location within territory that historically belonged to the Kwikwetlem merits inclusion within the article, but not the lead. There is also a consensus that language imitating or reflecting the practice of "land acknowledgment" would be non-neutral and an inappropriate way of doing so. There was little positive discussion concerning how exactly this history should be presented. A couple of editors complained that "traditional" and "ancestral" are neither relevant nor sufficiently understood in this context, and the one editor who was pushing for them has agreed to drop the issue of their inclusion; I will tentatively say there is a consensus against both adjectives. Of the four participants who specifically mentioned the issue of the territory being unceded, two supported saying so and two opposed; I will thus say there is no consensus on that, although I think further discussion of it would likely be fruitful. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Should a First Nations "land acknowledgement" be included on a Canadian city article? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• No - Land acknowledgements are political statements and should not be included. CBC states they are " political statements meant to recognize First Nations, Inuit, and Métis territory", and CNN states they are "an attempt to address the past, present and future of a particular location as it relates to Indigenous peoples as well as to understand one's own place within it". Wikipedia articles should be neutral in tone and not a place for advocacy or persuasion. Whether the land on which the city was built was "ceded" or "unceded" is of little relevance on city articles, and should be placed on the article about that particular First Nation. Moreover, there is nothing stopping an agenda-driven editor from spamming an identical land claim onto hundreds of geographic articles. These are political statements and should not be placed onto city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This RfC statement fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL, unsurprisingly. It presupposes that the phrasing in the article is a land acknowledgement for political purposes, and not a simple statement of fact. It should be reworded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC statement does not mention politics. I know this topic is very important to you, but please, let's let others offer an opinion about this. Thank you for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Put the indigenous history somewhere in the article. It's entirely neutral to start at beginning of human settlement. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• No The land acknowledgement are political statements (the wording is not encyclopedic, it's not clear what exactly traditional land and ancestral land means), however I do believe that in the history section, there should be information on the indigenous populations that inhabited the land before the city was founded, and whatever treaties were or were not made in relation to the founding of the city itself. I added the name of the indigenous peoples in the lead for this article but all further details belong in the history section, in my opinion. Mattximus (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Mattximus, ancestral and traditional in this context are explained in the footnote I added. However, I could agree with removing those words, as long as we leave in "unceded", which would be sufficient to get the actual historical fact across. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes (to statement of facts) and no (to land acknowledgement language). By yes, I trust we all can agree on these three facts: 1) the City of Coquitlam has a geographic footprint; 2) the historical territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation has a geographic footprint; and 3) the smaller geographic footprint of the City of Coquitlam is within the larger geographic footprint of the historical territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to, yes, include the third fact in the Geography section on the condition that it is worded neutrally without political slant and supported by a reliable source. (like a map of historical territories of Indigenous peoples in BC showing Coquitlam within that of Kwikwetlem First Nation).

  By no, if it reads like an actual land acknowledgement, it is impossible to detach from the non-neutral, politically-motivated language. Further, if it is elevated to the lead, it has WP:UNDUE weight and therefore appears politically motivated.

  Note: I do not endorse including it in the History section. The History section should be primarily focused on the history of the geographic footprint of the city as it has evolved over time, not a vastly larger area surrounding and including the city. If the Kwikwetlem First Nation has a historical settlement or event occur within (or even adjacent) to the historically evolving geographic footprint of the city, then by all means include neutral, referenced facts on the settlement/event(s) in the History section.

  In summary yes, in the Geography section if neutral and sourced, and no if using non-neutral, politically-motivated language and/or if in lead or History section.

  Side comment: it is absolutely disgusting to include an analogy in the previous discussion that compares the notable fact a city is within historical Indigenous territory to the trivial fact the same city has a garbage pickup schedule. It wreaks of xenophobia, intended or not. Hwy43 (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not intended. Sloppy and insensitive analogy on my part. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hwy43, generally speaking I can agree with your proposal, and I appreciate your input. I was the one that moved the statement to Geography rather than History, so I agree that is where it belongs. I can agree with removing "ancestral and traditional" but as I said above, I believe it is factually correct to describe the land as "unceded", given that there is no treaty or other agreement handing over the land in any legal sense. I'm not a history expert, and obviously can't prove a negative, but I searched for Coquitlam treaty, Kwikwetlem treaty, etc, and found no evidence of any historical treaty, not even one that is disputed or otherwise disagreed with. Reliable institutions such as city governments and educational institutions specifically use the word unceded. This is not a case where a treaty was broken, but where none was ever made; "unceded" is the term of art generally used for such territory in Canada.

In terms of a map, page 15 of this agreement between the BC government and the Kwikwetlem Nation shows the Kwikwetlem traditional territory. As a government source I think this is sufficiently reliable. The BC Government website confirms the Nation is not currently engaged in a treaty process with the government, but do have some agreements about forestry in their area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The map in Appendix A of the agreement is difficult to read but based on the placement of text that fuzzily resembles "Coquitlam" it is evident that this would be a sufficient source to backup up the fact that X is within Y. It can be the ref to support the starting point proposal I have offered below. Does the Government of BC publish higher quality base maps with the historical footprints of its Indigenous nations? Although most of adjacent Alberta is subject to treaties, this is an effective tool for determining which communities fall within which treaty area. Hwy43 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The disputed text is the following:

"Coquitlam is situated on the ancestral, traditional, and unceded territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation (kʷikʷəƛ̓əm)." Magnolia677 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Linking to Aboriginal title seems misleading since the Kwikwetlem tribe doesn't currently have legal authority over the city, as that link implies. If that link is removed, then this sentence appears to be informative, well-supported, and not unduly biased, and thus worth keeping in the History or Geography section. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Refs and note
References Notes

• I guess the starting point I am proposing is the following:

"Coquitlam is within the historical territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation."ref Hwy43 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, not especially noteable that it's unceded. Mention it at some point in the body, but I don't think it should be in the lede.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per I dream of horses. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Both these editors have confused a "land acknowledgement" with "indigenous history". They are not the same thing. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Perhaps Magnolia677 will restore the indigenous history of Greater Massachusetts that he removed from more than 30 locations today (example). Then he might improve the article land acknowledgement, before starting an RfC like this. Wikipedia does not use the word politics as argued above except to say some find it to be PC. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy requiring editors to improve certain articles before starting an RfC? Also, this is not the place to discuss the unrelated edits of RfC participants. Your comments are weirdly inappropriate for an RfC. Please assume good faith. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, WP:AAGF. You brought up two topics: Both these editors have confused a "land acknowledgement" with "indigenous history". -SusanLesch (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. This page about Territory Acknowledgement has several helpful articles under "Learn More," including "Beyond territorial acknowledgments" by âpihtawikosisân, and a longer interview with Hayden King, where he explains how he'd change the one he said he regrets. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• No to "land acknowledgement", further comments as follows: I initially arrived here to review the discussion for possible closure. Due to muddled discussion here, I decided to instead offer my views and analysis as a participant. It should be noted that there is background discussion in the two sections above, #Local_indigenous_tribe and #Unceded_territory.
  I believe there is substantial agreement above that any relevant text belongs in the History or Geography section, not the lead. That is my position as well.
  There appears to be substantial agreement above that something should be said. Various comments above address this in varying ways, which I did not always find as clear as I would like. The article currently contains the following: The Coast Salish people were the first to live in this area, and archaeology confirms continuous occupation of the territory for at least 9,000 years. The name Kwikwetlem is said to be derived from a Coast Salish term "kʷikʷəƛ̓əm" meaning "red fish up the river". That text, or something similar, is entirely appropriate. It appears to me that the debate is whether to include a particular type of statement in addition to that. The style of statement has been described as a "land acknowledgement".
  As I understand the situation, there has been a social movement seeking to highlight past injustice against native peoples in a way that goes above and beyond typical current practice. Support or opposition for any social movement should not influence us in our role as editors. Wikipedia is not a tool to Right Great Wrongs. Wikipedia does not lead, Wikipedia follows. As such, we should not include out-of-the-ordinary content to advance or oppose outside causes.The article currently contains a sentence Coquitlam is situated on the ancestral, traditional, and unceded territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation as well as a triple-footnote defining "ancestral", "traditional", and "unceded territory". This is the "land acknowledgement" at issue. The fact that this text requires a triple explanatory footnote only highlights for me how far outside the expected bounds this sentence is. The very authors of the text anticipate that "ancestral" is neither expected nor commonly understood in this context, that "traditional" is neither expected nor commonly understood in this context, and that even wikilinking unceded territory isn't sufficient. I will note that the text also included an over-the-top (kʷikʷəƛ̓əm) pronunciation-parentetical, which I deleted. Such pronunciation-parenteticals should only appear in the specific article lead, not in the body of incidental articles.
  In summary: Our job is to accurately summarize how Reliable Sources normally cover a topic. It is fine to briefly mention prior habitation of the area before the city was founded, but we should not include "land acknowledgement"-type statement unless and until that is an accurate summary of typical Reliable Source coverage. The entire ancestral/traditional/unceded-territory/triple-footnote should be removed. Alsee (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.