Talk:Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia

Alkali Lake

Removing Alkali Lake because can't find any information on the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada website[1]

First Nation (band)	Alternate name(s)	Tribal Council affiliation(s)	Region/Location	Treaty Status	Date	Ethnolinguistic group	Details
Alkali Lake Indian Band	Esketemc First Nation		Cariboo			Secwepemc (Shuswap)

That's because they're Esketemc First Nation in INAC's site - here. I adjusted the row above, as they're not part of the TNG (some site somewhere had said they were but it's not in either the TNG site as such, and I don't think they're in either of the Secwepemc tribal councils....they have lots of reserves.Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also please note my changes to the table-row above, as nearly all FN governments have alternate names; there's also maybe another column that could designate the particular ethnic group(s), which in this case is Esketemc as well as Secwepemc (Esketemc being the name of the local Secwepemc group); similarly Shackan First Nation has an attached "ethno" article, Skx'nx or something like that....Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Added in the Esketemc First Nation as for other columns, that type of information is useful for the List of First Nations governments in British Columbia but this is about treaty status. If they want to find out more about the ethnic group they can click on the First Nation site.-- Esemono (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reconsidering title

My first change here was to correct the syntax of the title, but on reconsidering I see it should probably be Status of First Nations treaty negotiations in British Columbia...although since there are some treaties, and not just negotiations, it's maybe not that necessary of a change....and I think there is probably an Aboriginal land claims in Canada article already; certainly there's one called unceded territory, though that has other applications globally. But History of aboriginal land claims in British Columbia is maybe a good idea for a parallel article, as the work of the British Columbia Treaty Commission is a somewhat different thing than the history of the claims themselves, i.e treaties are one subject, claims history is a different topic (and very complicated, and not an article to be started lightly).Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of Tribal Council and Treaty Council/Assn

These should be two separate columns, as they're quite different in nature, though sometimes coincide (but not usually).Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again useful information for the List of First Nations governments in British Columbia but not so good here. -- Esemono (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamatla Treaty Society / Kwakiutl District Council

I didn't correct the various Kwakwaka'wakw items, partly because a lot of the band government articles don't exist yet; but as per the previous section linking the Cape Mudge Indian Band to Hamatla Treaty Society is not a proper link; yes it's a link and results in a blue link rather than a red one, but Cape Mudge Indian Band/Cape Mudge First Nation is a needed article anyway that link currently is misdirected to Laich-kwil-tach, which is a separate ethno article...and should maybe be Legwildok or one of various other spellings; same as Weiwakai). Piping a band government to a treaty council including that band government is not correct linkage.Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Created the Cape Mudge First Nation article -- Esemono (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing INAC numbers

621, 727 are missing from the INAC database

INAC Numbers in the table

Because there is so much confusion about which band is called what it is necessary to have an unique key. Not everyone in the world knows the correct name of every First Nation group in British Columbia. The INAC provides this key. Even if it made sense to remove the number, and it doesn't, one should always repair the damage that is caused by removing a whole column and not just leave the table in disarray for other users to clean up after you. --Esemono (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"One" should know something about the subject matter before composing major articles about it; if you've replaced the INAC nubmers, I'm taking them back out again., They are inappropriate and inoffensive and there is NO need for a "unique key"; not everyone knows the name of every First Nations group in BC but nobody (except you( gievs a good god damn about their numbers; the equivalent ot the INAC number for bands is the status number for individuals; part of the dehumaniziing legacy of the Indian Act.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is wikipedia a place where people uneducated and uninformed of British Columbia let alone the proper naming of its over 70 First Nations can come and learn about said First Nation groups. It is not your private playground. There should be some way to confirm that there is A) not duplicates on the list and B) a "unique key" to distinguish on First Nation from another. -- Esemono (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tribal councils vs treaty groups

And typical of your know-nothing approach to taking on major subjects, ylu've repeatedly treated non-tribal councils as if they were tribal councils; I've fixed a few of the Winalalagis/KDC errors, but the Sencoten Alliance, among otheres, is NOT A TRIBAL Council. Also your language, borrowed frmo the BC government, for bands which reject the treaty process - "not participating in the treaty process" - is ultimatley POV and not reflective of the true state of politics around treaties; not surprising since the body of your content, and obviously your thinking, has been gotten from the BC government site.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously its from the BC website. I don't do original research. -- Esemono (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BC's refusal to negotiate

This seems to be part of the reason the POV tag was added. You seemed to have missed that in the first paragraph it is written, "For over nine decades no more treaties were signed with First Nations of BC; many Native people wished to negotiate treaties, but successive BC provincial governments refused until the 1990s." and referenced twice. -- Esemono (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Skway First Nation

You removed, Skway First Nation, any particular reason? Are they known under another name? -- Esemono (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First Nation	Treaty Council affiliation(s)	Region/Location	Treaty Status	Date	Details
Skway First Nation	Sto:lo Nation	Fraser Valley	Not participating in treaty process[2]		One of four Sto:lo Nation members not in the treaty process Also known as Shxwhá:y First Nation

Readding Skway since there has been no response. -- Esemono (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sencot'en Alliance

The Sencot'en Alliance has been verified A) in existence[3] B) it has been verified as a Tribal council suing the BC government.[4] and here [5] -- Esemono (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive edits by Esemono

Although I've since re-added this:

member governments of which reject the treaty process and remain outside it

I note that it was removed by Esemono with the edit comment "repair damage to the table" when the edit in question actually made no changes at all to the table (which wasn't damaged). Such suspect edits - in this case amounting to censorship - are not a light matter and cast doubt on Esemono's motives/agenda. WP:Good faith is hard to observe when clearly censor-oriented edits are masked as if they were technical/format edits....Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually when you broke the table I tried to fix your mistake by going into the edit history but I myself made a mistake and reverted your addition instead. As you can clearly see in the article history I re-added the sentence in this edit, but then I actually forgot to fix the table but I see that you fixed your own mistake so thanks! If you want to review the history of the article a helpful hint is too click the article history before making wild accusations about, "agendas". -- Esemono (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Skway/Skwah

The reason Skway First Nation was removed was that there were TWO entries with that name, i.e. it's still there, but one of two instances was removed. Skwah First Nation, on the other hand, is still not in the table (and is not the same).Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I understand. This is exactly why there needs to be a unique identifier so the average wikipedian, like me, who doesn't do original research on BC First Nations can quickly tell the difference between two similar First Nation names. -- Esemono (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What YOU don't do is research, other than copying over government site-copy as if it were reliable, or finding out where a band is before putting it in entirely the wrong region (such as placing Tsimshian bands in the Peace Country...). AS for the nonsensical twittery about why the "unique identifier" is needed, nobody other than INAC would think of saying "Band No 148" in reference to something that actually has a name. How wikipedians distinguish between similar names is not giving them numbers, it's using hatnotes to say "This article is about a band government in the area of Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada. For the similarly named government, also near Chilliwack, see [fill in the blanks]". OR "This article is about the government known as the Skwah First Nation. For the similarly named but different government in the same area see Skway First Nation". The further measure would be to change the Skway First Nation's article title to Sh:xwe:y (sp?) Village, which is its official name. Your obsesssion with including band numbers displays your insensitivity to native cultural and political realities; Indian Act status numbers and band numbers have long been considered offensive; there's no reason to include Ottawa's filing system when there are other ways of distinguishing similarly-named bands and reserves. Your equivocation on this matter is completely ridiculous.Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Reconciliation protocols"

From Special Resource Management Plans to various other accords, there are all KINDS of non-treaty agreements that are not part of the treaty process and are not treaties. If all were included, this list would have to be retitled; cluttering it up with p.r. announcements from the BC government, which is pushing its agenda hard in this area as if it were accomplishing something; I took them out, there's just too much of that kind of thing to add to this table. The phrase "not taking part in the treaty process", which is the language used by the BC government, pretty much means that those nations should not be in this table to start with, and the more appropriate language is "hostile to the treaty process" or "condemns the treaty process", which is pretty much the case across the board with UBCIC member governments.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

not taking part in the treaty process

"not taking part in the treaty process" is in my opinion way less POV than "hostile to the treaty process" or "condemns the treaty process" not to mention you'd have to get reliable sources confirming that each First Nation is hostile and condems the process.--Esemono (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee, huh, wouldn't it have been nice if you'd researched that before using the BC government's choice of wording, which avoids even hinting at the positions of the recalcitrant First Nations...the UBCIC page is a place to start (http://www.ubcic.org or http://www.ubcic.com = whichever it is). You have a bad habit of using the Executive Council of BC as a source without any other points of reference.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Its OK if you can't find any information, I won't hold it against you. But if you have any useful suggestions on an ALT wording for, "not taking part in the treaty process" I'm all ears.-- Esemono (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

not part of the treaty process

This article isn't about just the BC Treaty process as shown by the First Nation Treaties covered by Treaty 8 agreements or the Douglas Treaties or even the recent Nisga'a Treaty which were all signed outside the Treaty process. You have a point as to whether or not the, "Coastal Reconciliation Protocol" signed with the six costal nations is a, "Treaty". The CBC article I linked to seemed to imply that is was a significant agreement that is or would lead to a full fledged Treaty, "What our people look at this as, is a way to incrementally build up that you may put a ribbon around at the end of the day and call it a treaty, if it works," he said." -- Esemono (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are, to repeat, all kinds of agreements between FNs and both local and provincial governments and agencies, they all can't be included....what you've effectively done, also, is create a directory Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory of bands; this has bothered me about this article since day one; and in a very real way this article is redundant to Land claims in British Columbia, which if it doesn't exist as a sub-article of Land claims it should, and can explore the anti-treaty positions of UBCIC bands and others without having to use the BC government's allegedly NPOV language (which you claim in the preceding section), rather than reflecting those band's true positions, instead of the BCGov language which implies that they will, eventually, be part of the process. So long as the government continues to insist that they sign away aboriginal land claims and accept municipal-type status, these other bands and groups within those bands (who might not support their "Indian Act governments" will always reject the treaty process and the surrendering of what they see as their existing sovereignty.....that you omitted a full description of the UBCIC position in the lede/intro, which I've since amended, is either disingenuous or a POV omission. It would really help if you know something of the full history and legal angles about all this before you assayed a page which is, effectively, to me, a promotion of the BC govenrments' treaty agenda, rather than a truly neutral and objective article.Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Corruption case re Kitimat/Haisla treaty negotiations

There is a legal case in Kitimat at present involving the Premier, who is alleged to have threatened and blackmailed a Haisla elder in relation to the treaty process in that area; there's tons of coverage in the Terrace Daily; I'll be back with particulars of the case and a cite; this kind of thing, actual news copy, not reprinting of government-agenda propaganda, is what this article needs to make it more relevant; it's not just the status as classified by the BC government that's relevant, that's for sure, especially when the negotiations themselves have been cast into doubt by allegations of corruption, whether locally or at the top level as in the Haisla case.Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also been following this case..I was planing to make an article when it was all over and added it to the Template:Canadian Aboriginal case law....Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, there's a bunch yet that could use articles - the Xeni Gwetin decision, the Fred Quilt inquiry, the various cases arising from the fisheries wars in the Fraser Canyon of the '60s and '70s....I just got up and am "fuzzy" or could probably come up with at least another half-dozen important cases that don't have articles yet; Fred Quilt, if you don't know the name, was a Tshilhqot'in leader who was beaten to death by the local RCMP in the early 1970s; his death was one of the factors which contributed to the resurgency in native political organization/assertiveness (do you have an article on the "White Paper" of 1970, under Chretien's ministerial watch, which called for assimilation - another major impetus for the modern-era native political resurgence....Skookum1 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717162825/http://www.unionbarfirstnations.com/phpBB3/index.php to http://www.unionbarfirstnations.com/phpBB3/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)