Category talk:Indian reserves in British Columbia

possible redundancy to this category

I'm not sure this category needs to exist; it would seem to overlap with "First Nations governments in BC" to me; a full listing of ALL reserves, occupied and unoccupied, is pretty useless. There's another spillover in that the communities aren't the same thing as the governments of these reserves; so separate articles are needed for the community, which is what the reserve articles could be for; I guess, that is. Not sure. Point is that "reserves" in the context as listed here seems to point to actual communities, as opposed to just any plot of surveyed land with blue-and-white fenceposts and a different coloration on the map and all the stuff that goes with that; and I'd go with "First Nations communities in BC" because sometimes there are communities which AREN'T on-reserve. For any First Nations/Native American group, there's a potential/necessary four way split in terms of separate articles needed: ethnicity/tribe/nation, government/organization, language/culture and community/reserve/reservation/agency.Skookum1 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a listing is ok, but not within these confines. A straight list somewhere is good, but a category potentially linking to seperate articles on every reserve is ridiculous. Some are lived in, some aren't, some are the size of your hand others are the size of Surrey. Plus when (and if...) more treaties ever get ratified, there will be mass deletions/alterations of these articles etc. I think the FN category split should go as follows: Ethnicity/Tribe/Nation, Government/Organization, Language/Culture, Persons. I'm not sure if a seperate FN 'community' category is necessary because they could be organized under BC communities with the additional Cat. of the Ethnicity/Tribe/Nation as distinguishment.--Keefer4 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say for most reserves, you're right, especially the uninhabited ones, or where there are agglomerations run by the same band; generally they're only listed on a band page (e.g. Ulkatcho First Nation) and as communities will be discussed on pages like Xwemelch'stn from the historical/traditional/community end of things; there are some that are near-munis in scale, though, such as the Mount Currie Reserve and those surrounding Lillooet; and where, say as at Mt. Currie, there are non-native non-reserve areas also named Mount Currie adjoining the reserve, there is a need for a separate placename article from the reserve proper. But yeah, there's way too many; some authors seem to have contributed random stubs on certain ones found on maps, or which were written up as IR stubs (Pavilion No. 1) where the relevant article would have been the band or, as again in that case, the band and the non-band community making up the locality article Pavilion, British Columbia (which if it's not done yet I guess I better get at it...been waiting on pics, but a stub will do....later, though; I'm playing music for the afternoon, and just downing some coffee/lunch beforehand while writing this....). But see Talk:Xwemelch'stn for the distinction between the community/history and the artifact of the reserve; land-law history and such details are notable in some cases, e.g. right now in the news the Tsawwassen IR/ALR thing and also the history of the Tsawwassen IR from the O'Reilly and other commissions in the 1800s; same also Songhees and, say, the transfer of Kitsilano IR No. 1 aka Snauq into Vanier Park. BTW note that my original query here is from last May....Skookum1 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Indian Reserves in British Columbia

"First Nations reserve" is a neologism, and also is POV, and also "Indian Reserve" is the properly official name of all such places, and also used by the bands themselves in correspondence. I've already changed List of Indian Reserves in Canada for the same reason; this is a category so will nned to go to CFD. The use of "First Nations" as an adjecitve in place of "Indigenous", "aboriginal" and/or "Indian" is consciously POV/p.c. in nature and also awkward sounding; there is no such place as a "First Nations reserve". There are First Nations, First Nations governments, and First Nations people (the last being a decidedly POV neologism as well). Time to end the charade, and teh many awkward wordings overuse of the p.c.-ism incurs....Skookum1 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of this category on non-reserve locations in appropriate

I just fixed a few things on Gingolx, British Columbia and noted the presence of this category, which is now utterly inappropriate and has been since the Nisga'a Treaty of 2000, when Nisga'a reserves were turned over to fee-simple lands under tribal governance; THEY ARE NOT RESERVES. This includes Greenville and other existing settlements, and also applies to former Indian Reserves which are now "sites" under control of the Nisga'a government (and all of which have been renamed with Nisga'a names). Gingolx had been Kincolith Indian Reserve Nos. 14 and 14A; now its official listing is "Community" ("Gingolx (Community)". BC Geographical Names.). I'm not sure if similar quasi-municipal arrangements are part of the Maa-nulth Treaty (awaiting ratification) but they definitely are re Sechelt lands - those reserves are now Indian Government Districts and explicitly NOT reserves. NB it will not be appropriate to have whatever category is created for these to be a subcategory of Indian Reserves category. But "something must be done"....this category has been loosey-goosey in terms of what "reserve" is taken to mean and how it's been applied (e.g. on town articles which contain Indian communities but which are not exclusively FN in character/content) and on the idea that all reserves are inhabited (in BC only a few of the total are). There's no quick fix for this, just serving notice that on articles like Gingolx and Greenville, this category has to go. For now I'm leaving it for lack of another category to move them to, however....Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)