The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). There is clear consensus that this article is about the same topic as Saint John River, making it a WP:POVFORK. Salting is not necessary unless there are disruptive edits to the redirect, which doesn't appear to be the case based on the article's history. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I invite attention to this discussion to understand the origin of this article. The status of this river as an international boundary artificially splits the region's previous history as a single first nation with important contributions to preservation of the Acadian way of life. I am of the opinion this material might be integrated into the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article from which it was removed by Cornellier. Failure to keep this information together needlessly fragments background circumstances important to understanding of that history. This situation may justify application of WP:IAR to the WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this point of view. A river being an international boundary does not preclude coverage of subjects that cross that international boundary. JM (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, and salt as a WP:POVFORK rewrite of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article covering the exact same subject but from a certain POV. Even the first sentence of the article makes it an obvious POVFORK, covering the same exact subject as Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) in a First Nations POV rather than the conventional geography: Wolastoq (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy: “The River of the Good Wave”), changed in 1604 by Samuel de Champlain to Fleuve Saint-Jean (English: Saint John River), is a river flowing within the Dawnland region for approximately 418 miles (673 km). NPOV is a pillar, and having 2 articles about the same subject with one from NPOV and one from a First Nations POV violates that pillar. JM (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Delete) then salt. Definate POV Fork. Masterhatch (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name in favor of the ambiguous term Saint John would reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries. Rejection of the indigenous name would be a continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. This river unified an early civilization as the Nile unified Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates unified what is now know as Iraq. A merged article entitled Wolastoq would uniquely identify this river while Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) could redirect modern users to the article including a history of the renaming. Thewellman (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In English (and this is the English wikipedia) Saint John is the common name. Wolastoq is the name in the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language. Deleting this article doesn't "reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries" as Wolastoq is not English. If we had a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language wiki, then it would make sense to name that river Wolastoq there. Having two articles like this about the same subject is a clear POV fork. Masterhatch (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:COMMONNAME for why that's wrong. Saint John River (and its translations and transliterations) is the name used by most of the world now, including all provincial, state, and federal governments involved. It doesn't matter what name was used hundreds of years ago, whether it was used for 10 years or 10,000 years, because it's not used now. JM (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official name in French is Rivière Saint-Jean; the fact we don't use it in the title here is the best parallel to this issue. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right (although to my knowledge it's fleuve Saint-Jean), and the reason we don't use it in the title is because it is not the English common name. This is English Wikipedia. JM (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to the French version of the name isn't exactly apt. There are efforts to rename the river in English by adopting the indigenous name as the official English (and perhaps French) name for the river. It's just that those proposals haven't been successful yet (and might never be). There has also been attempts to compromise by adopting "Wolastoq Saint John", but that hasn't happened yet either. At the end of the day, the article should be where readers will look for it per WP:RF. Though, I would suspect the other name should be mentioned in the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article perhaps in the history section where it could be mentioned that the river was known as Wolastoq prior to European colonization, in a section or paragraph about efforts to change the official name back to Wolastoq, or, if appropriate, in the lede. The way to recognize the name is not to create a WP:POVFORK though.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the former common name pre-colonization and the attempts to change the name are notable, then they can be in the main article. The comparison to the French name comes from the fact that neither name is the English common name, although of course there are no significant attempts to rename the river in English to its French name. JM (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the name is officially changed, the wiki article might not change due to common name. Examples are Turkey and Ivory Coast. There are lots of other examples out there where the common name and official name aren't the same. Anyways, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it if the name is ever officially changed. Masterhatch (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Wikipedia goes by common name, not official name. JM (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of persistent disruptive editing, I question both characterization of this river history as a POV fork, and it's relevance to present renaming discussions, since its creation was motivated solely to preserve, in intact format, material deleted from the Saint John River article by a single editor based on interpretation of WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because even the title and opening sentence are POV. Paraphrasing, but "Wolastoq is a river in the Dawnland" is not at all in conventional geography. Neither of those terms are common names. If it weren't a POVFORK, it would say "Saint John River is a river in New Brunswick and Maine" or something.
Regardless if it's a POVFORK or not (although I believe it is), if material is deleted from the Saint John River article and there is a consensus to keep it out, then people shouldn't go create another article on the same river with that deleted material, because that makes two articles covering the same subject differently. I notice that you've now voted merge, so you must see a similar problem by now. JM (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As should be clear from this discussion, I preferred merge from the onset; but drafted this amplifying history article at the suggestion of the editor who deleted the material. The consensus was to put the history in a different article. Disagreement appears to have arisen about the title of that history article. Thewellman (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant text, then salt. "Saint John River" is the official name in both countries. No need to confuse readers with two articles about the same topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Human history section of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article, but retain as a redirect. WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name, in the absence of persistent disruptive recreation, would be a disrespectful continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't agree with a merge nor do I think the article has to be a POV fork; it should be rewritten if possible. It states "it remains a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day" so if it was rewritten to support that, then it would be its unique article. I wrote a similar article at Bdóte which explains how it is culturally significant to Dakota people and something similar could be done to this article if there's sources to support it. oncamera (talk page) 21:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that your article seems to be on a subject that is not covered elsewhere, whereas this article is about the Saint John River under a different name but with a very conspicuous First Nations POV. It can't be rewritten and saved because no matter how it is rewritten it still covers the exact same river under a different, and non-English, name. JM (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article covered why it's "a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day", it would be its own article and not just covering the river. I see on this site, Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada:
"as the river running the length of their territory, it has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik physically, culturally and spiritually over millennia. Tradition tells that the watershed itself was created by a great man who saved the people and brought water to them by felling a tree on the monster Aglebe’m, and the Gluskup stories record the creation of many of the river’s features;"
"Wolastoq means “the Beautiful River” in the Maliseet language, while Wolastoqiyik means “the People of the Beautiful River”. While this territory includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization, and spirituality, it is specifically the Wolastoq itself, its lakes and tributaries that connects these sites and unites the Wolastoqiyik as a nation. The watershed represents the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik and includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization and spirituality. The many Indigenous place names throughout the watershed link past and present, complementing elders’ stories of traditional uses and evidence from archaeology."
"places along its length speak to the importance of “the Beautiful River” to the Wolastoqiyik over time and space, including their 17th-century habitation at Menahkwesh near the mouth of the river; their Grand Council Chamber and annual gathering spot on Kani Uten, an island at the head of tide; and on land located at the divide between the middle and upper parts of the river valley that became part of a Wolastoqkew reserve in 1801, at the upper part of the river, on River Road, Tobique First Nation."
There was a consensus here that language imitating or reflecting the practice of a First Nations "land acknowledgement" would be non-neutral and inappropriate on Canadian city articles. I believe it could be extended to an article about a river. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This isn't a land acknowledgement and has no relevancy to writing an article that explains the history and cultural significance that a tribe has to a sacred location; Native peoples' history is embedded in the land and the two are intrinsically connected. Writing about the history, oral traditions that go back thousands of years is not the same as a white government putting a land acknowledgment on their website. I can rewrite this article using sources that go over the bullet points listed above in the same format as Bdóte if it's not salted. oncamera (talk page) 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history or cultural significance of the river should be contained in the article about the river. If that article gets so long that it can't be contained there, a neutral sub-article (ie fork) titled something like History of the Saint John River could be created. But until that happens, historical, anthropological and cultural information should be in the main article. If editors there can't be convinced that it belongs there, then a WP:POVFORK that looks at the river only from an indigenous perspective is not the answer.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolastoq should be written beyond the river itself and include the Wolastoqiyik relationship to the river, valleys and tributaries since their geographical relationship isn't bound to simply the river itself per Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which is a Canadian government website. This article could even be redirected to Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which shouldn't be a redirect to the river. The Canadian government sees it as a "Designation of National Historic Significance", not as the river. oncamera (talk page) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national historic site covers most of NB (thousands of square kms). It seems like a way of giving some limited recognition to the historic territory of the Maliseet and perhaps to drumb up tourism in the area. Why can't information about the Maliseet's historic territory and their relationship with it be dealt with in the article about them? Insofar as it relates to the river itself, in that article? This seems like a pretty obvious POV fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is significant coverage and it's not OR, having an article about the national historic site is fine. What's not fine is having an article about a river when there is already a pre-existing article about that same river except this new article frames it from a First Nations POV. The article is about the river, not the historic site or the cultural area or the ethnic group. JM (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources for Wolastoq as a historic site that go into great scholarly detail:
Keep. This is a well-developed article, which has potential for further development as outlined above. There are plenty cultural geography articles; no reason to eliminate this one. Yuchitown (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
This discussion isn't about what the article "could be", it's about what it is "right now", and if you read the article, it mostly documents the history and geography of the river, which duplicates content at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). User:Yuchitown, why should we have two "well-developed" articles on exactly the same topic? If your point is, in fact, that this river has unique mythical/religious significance to First Nations people, which some editors like User:Oncamera or User:Masterhatch are arguing, then this could be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). A discussion about the naming dispute could also be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). No one has said these topics are not important, or should not be included somewhere on Wikipedia. It's just that...decisions on Wikipedia are not made based on feelings or politics or what "could be", they are based on what is in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers, and having two articles about exactly the same topic--one using a common, officially-recognized name, and one without--does not advance that cause. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can start adding the new information about the cultural significance of the heritage site as I posted a number of sources to do so. The heritage site is recognized by the Canadian government. Your renaming rant seems to be about something neither I nor Yuchitown are talking about. Please refrain from making strawman arguments against us. oncamera (talk page) 11:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m voting “Keep” based on exactly what it now. It’s well cited and notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
That's ignoring the fact that it has the exact same subject as another article but under a POV name. Yes, it's well-cited and notable, but it's a duplicate article except with a POV. JM (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge based on common, current name. Intothatdarkness 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Wolastoq National Historic Site or something, per oncamera and Yuchitown. While the article does contain reduplicated content, it should be expanded and rewritten to be more about the river as a heritage site rather than a fork of the main article.
It seems that the Wolastoq National Historic Site is not a park or something but essentially the entire Canadian portion of the Saint John River Valley. The government site describes a broad area including public, private and indiginous lands that make up [t]he entire drainage system has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik (ie the Maliseet). In my view this should be dealt with in the Maliseet article or the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article. But if not, something like Wolastoq National Historic Site or Saint John River Valley (region) might be okay. Leaving the article at its current title, is going to welcome an article that looks at the region/historic site only from an indigenous perspective. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. If this article's content remains, it must do so somewhere where a WP:NPOV will be followed, and where the topic is covered from a broad perspective.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, and I agree with 'Keep, but would it be easier to draftify and allow editors to make the changes suggested?
I think we shouldn't ignore the significance of this historic cultural place to First Nations people. I could see if it was completely unsourced but that obviously isn't the case. I do think it should avoid being solely about the river or that risks being a fork of the main article. But I think what is proposed by oncamera and Yuchitown would make sure the article is original enough and display the historical significance of the river and site to First Nations people that would benefit the encyclopedia. The article subject is notable and while I don't believe the intention of those in opposition of keeping the article is to downplay its historical significance that often is the result to the detriment of Wikipedia, our readers, and our Indigenous editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in good faith while also increasing the visibility of topics that have an affect on their lives personally and their communities. There is no reason to be insensitive even if you oppose keeping the article. --ARoseWolf 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the Saint John River - a source review shows that none of the accessible sources actually discuss the primary topic here, the Wolastoq, making this mostly WP:SYNTH, and maintaining it means we would have two different articles on the same title. The COMMONNAME article has plenty of space for expansion as well. There's plenty of encyclopedic stuff here, but our policy on forks, along with the fact the sourcing doesn't exist to support this, means this should not be a stand-alone article at its current title. SportingFlyerT·C 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.