Talk:Bde Maka Ska

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bde Maka Ska article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Lakes

	Lakes portal Bde Maka Ska is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Previously known as

Saying that Bde Maka Ska is "previously known as Lake Calhoun" is untrue. It continues to be known by that name. You could say it is "previously officially named" but some of you are woking too hard that you'll write something flatly untrue in the lede sentence of what is meant to be a repisitory of knowledge. Kislorod23 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources such as the media, newspapers, Google maps, the government etc refer to it now as Bde Maka Ska. Using reliable sources is the one of the foundations of Wikipedia. Your opinion or what your friends call the lake is not a reliable source that is used on Wikipedia. The former name is presented as it should be, a previous name. oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing you pretend not to understand what the word "known" means. The government refers to it as Bde Maka Ska? Yes, that would be an official name, not "known" which has a much broader meaning. Do people continue to say Lake Calhoun? Yes. If someone said "Lake Calhoun" to you, would you have to search your brain for what landmark that is? No. It is demonstrably still known as Lake Calhoun. Kislorod23 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your comment is referring to non-reliable sources. The former name has been replaced by the new name throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. There's now the Bde Maka Ska parkway, the neighborhoods East Bde Maka Ska and West Maka Ska have also been officially renamed. Eventually, the next generations will only know Bde Maka Ska and won't know what you're talking about when you use the former name. It's like telling kids today about the former Camp Snoopy at the Mall of America; they'll have no idea what that means since they've only seen Nickelodeon Universe. oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually? What a defense. Anyhow, you better run off and fix Denali as they appear to be using non-reliable sources! Kislorod23 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay on topic here, thanks. Please present reliable sources that show the media, newspapers etc use the former name of Lake Calhoun instead of Bde Maka Ska since the name change. It's being replaced throughout Minneapolis if not yet completely removed thus no need to give it equal weight just because it's how you refer to it. oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You argued "also known as" is against the standards of Wikipedia, and yet exactly that phrase is used in an analogous article. It's funny you call yourself a expert in philosophy and talk complete nonsense. Have fun reigning over this article. Kislorod23 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with the Denali article. Remain civil and avoid personal attacks if you want to remain an editor on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you'll eventually be blocked from editing for this kind of disruptive behavior towards other editors you disagree with. Thanks, oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV

@Kislorod23: The template:POV states that this tag should go on articles when: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources... The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.". Again, you need to provide "high-quality, reliable secondary sources" that show the previous name is used in media, newspapers, etc instead of Bde Maka Ska. Again the personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant per template:POV. I'm removing the template since this lack of sourcing your claim has been explained to you again and again. oncamera _{(talk page)} 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence structure is broken by saying "previously known as", so the POV tag is accurate. Consensus was to use "also known as" such as the Denali article consensus. I moved it back to that and will remove the pov tag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click):: Since you want to add in a POV edit without any sources, I'm going to restore the template:POV as the personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant without high-quality, reliable secondary sources. Formerly or previously known as is acceptable, also known as needs to be sourced as being used instead of the official name. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole section on the naming dispute confirms it as not POV. It doesn't need a source in the lead section as it is quite accurate per the prose section. But whatever floats your boat. It could say "previous official name Lake Calhoun" but consensus on this has not changed. Formerly known or previously known are terms absolutely not accurate at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no reliable sources exist to show Lake Calhoun is also used and the template:POV clearly says personal/public views are irrelevant without them. There are reliable sources showing the name has changed and Lake Calhoun is now the former name, even surrounding neighborhoods and streets have changed their name. I don't know anyone who calls it by that old name so how can I believe "a lot of people" still use the old name without sources? oncamera _{(talk page)} 03:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of sources use the old name. I plopped one in the was right near the top. You think peoples brains melt when an official changes a name? Everyone I know still calls it Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix even though it officially changed. The lake name change just happened and it will be years before everyone changes their conversational use of lake Calhoun. Travel places still use the term. It will be "also known as" for years and years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not hundreds of sources that use the previous name instead of the official one since the name change. And the DNR website you used -- the DNR was the one who initiated the name change, so are they even a secondary source per template:POV? Per Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE, The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. Does the link say it's the named used instead of Bde Maka Ska? Otherwise, that's also WP:SYNTHESIS and even WP:Original Research. Again, you haven't provided reliable secondary sources that show the name is still used instead of Bde Maka Ska since the name change (it's not even noted when those links were last updated). Public/personal views are irrelevant without high quality secondary sources. I can list dozens of such sources that use Bde Maka Ska without mentioning the former name. oncamera _{(talk page)} 07:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had taken this level of scrutiny, ostensibly in the name of accuracy and objectivity, to the erroneous phrasing "previously known as," I would have never made an edit that re-triggered this debate. Amusing how only "also known as" triggers 9000 Wikipedia guideline violations, but asserting that nobody knows it as Calhoun does not. Kislorod23 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand what you're saying. oncamera _{(talk page)} 15:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you're reaching hard. Kislorod23 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously known as, sourced

None of the sources provided say "also known as" when it comes to the previous name. Per WP:Original Research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

The provided sources for "also known as":

None of those uses explicitly say "also known as Bde Maka Ska" so they fail the any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. It is original research to imply they mean otherwise.

However, here are multiple high quality sources that clear and explicitly say, "previously known as" Lake Calhoun or "formerly" known as Lake Calhoun]

Minneapolis Parks & Recs: Bde Maka Ska is now the official name of the lake previously known as Lake Calhoun
University of Minnesota digital collections: Bde Maka Ska is Dakota for "White Earth Lake," and was previously known as "Lake Calhoun."
Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Dakota name Bde Maka Ska was restored to the lake previously known as Lake Calhoun."
Minnesota Public Radio News: "Bde Maka Ska, formerly Lake Calhoun"

Therefore, I will include the reliably sourced phrase "previously known as" since I have provided multiple sources that say exactly that from various sources. Also per WP:CONLEVEL, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale meaning any consensus should not be used to override the basic principles of Wikipedia, such as no original research, so any rationale using a consensus on another article to disregard reliably sourced information is improper. oncamera _{(talk page)} 11:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop the disruptive editing against consensus. Two of us have told you to stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being disruptive as I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, no original research and WP:CONLEVEL which clearly says Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. I have clearly explained that above yet you revert with no policy explanation for why consensus should override the basic foundation of Wikipedia. You put a warning on my talkpage about not following Wikipedia standards yet it's you that reverted back to sources that are original research. I'll ping a couple of users who thanked me for this discussion so they can provide their thoughts. @Paul2520 and Bobamnertiopsis: oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is there now is 100% false and must have a pov tag. It is NOT previously known as, and you have been told that by others. And it is against current consensus. This seems to be a personal item with you to wipe out what people think. As I said before, it could be previous official name, but not previously known as. This is dictionary simple as @Kislorod23: has said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Template:POV says: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources... The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." You've not provided high-quality sources that actually say "also known as" as shown above. I have for "previously known as". It's bizarre you want to ignore so many basic Wikipedia policies to push your POV. If the claim can't be sourced without original research, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. oncamera _{(talk page)} 00:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than unbalanced... it's actually false. It's not personal research, only you think that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources say "previously known as". I guess the University of Minnesota, the Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio News and the Minneapolis Parks & Recs are all liars because they don't agree with your personal views that can't be sourced? oncamera _{(talk page)} 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The words "also" and "known" seem to be at odds, why not go with "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/,[2] (previously named Lake Calhoun) is the..."? (not "previously officially named" as mentioned earlier") It is what is used on the Lake Nokomis page and no one seems to be fighting over it there. 'Known' implies memory, as if the name Calhoun was forgotten, which it has not been. 'Also' implies a shared legal status which the name Calhoun does not have. Myotus (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple phrases that can work. The Denali article solved it with "also known as Mount McKinley, its former official name" and that could also work here. Or "previous official name, Lake Calhoun". But "previously known as Lake Calhoun" is simply false unless you have some terrible memory disease. If that stays the pov tag will be on the page till the end of time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "also known as" will not work for many reasons and policies listed. "Previously named Lake Calhoun" is suitable, however, current version is also reliably source. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously named Lake Calhoun

Hi @Fyunck(click):, I am not proposing "previously known as Lake Calhoun" I am proposing "previously named Lake Calhoun" it is what is being used on the Lake Nokomis page and it appears Oncamera is agreeable to it. I am not proposing using "previous official name" as the adjective official only qualifies 'name' and is not needed as it is not needed/used on Lake Nokomis or for that matter on St. Paul, whose previous official name was Pigs Eye. :-) Are you agreeable and can I make the change "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/, previously named Lake Calhoun)" to the page? Myotus (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should use what is at the Denali article. It is the most accurate. However I would compromise with only the previous official name part. I feel official is an important aspect since it is the truth. The only false statement though is "previously known as"... that is a lie to our readers and completely false. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): if I am correct...

You are not okay with "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/,[2] previously named Lake Calhoun"

But "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/,[2] previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation)" would be okay?

(I propose using 'designation' as using 'name' twice is bad prose.)

Again, I find the adjective 'official' only qualifies 'name' and is not needed as it is not needed/used on Lake Nokomis. Also, brevity and clarity are a hallmarks of encyclopedic content. Wikipedia should strive to avoid sounding like a legal document.

While I feel "previously named Lake Calhoun" is a better fit for encyclopedic content, if you, @Oncamera: and @Kislorod23:, are willing to come consensus using "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/,[2] previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation)" then I am fine with it. Also, If I do not hear back from any of you in 72 hours with a 'no' vote, I will go ahead and make the change. Myotus (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel, "also known as Lake Calhoun, its former official name" is the way to go. The only aspect of "previously named" that is ok is at least it's not a lie like what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no sources use that compared to previously known as. The current version with previously known as is sourced and therefore not a "lie". oncamera _{(talk page)} 01:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fyunck(click):, No one is happy, and the phrase isn't perfect in any of our eyes, it is the way of compromise and working together on issues that have wide differing viewpoints. It is very unlikely either "previously known as" or "also known as Lake Calhoun, its former official name" will be allowed to be used.

Again the question is, not if you like it but can I replace "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/, previously known as Lake Calhoun)" with "Bde Maka Ska (/bəˈdeɪ məˈkɑː skɑː/,[2] previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation)"? That is the question. It would be best if answers are yes or no. Then we can move on to next steps. Myotus (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck do you mean by "be allowed?" Be allowed by whom? I'm beginning to think we need a full rfc on this first sentence here so others can get involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rather just go with the suggested sentence by Myotus, "previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation" since that satisfies your demand that the lake is still known as Calhoun, but doesn't equal it to the current official name. This change/compromise meets the sources that state it's previously known as such and lets people such as yourself continue to "know" it by its former official designation since that's your argument here. "Previously named..." is the most neutral way of writing it. oncamera _{(talk page)} 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't fight "previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation". It's within reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a chance for @Kislorod23: to comment, but if there are no more comments I will make the change tonight.Myotus (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead has been updated with the agreed to text "previously named Lake Calhoun, its former official designation" and the POV template removed. Similar to the Denali page, within the text's code I added the HTML comment: < !-- PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THE NAMES OR CHANGE THIS SECTION WITHOUT A PREVIOUS CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE --> Myotus (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]