Talk:Palisades Tahoe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bad redirect

It makes no sense to have Alexander Cushing redirect here, going to remove it once I figure out how... --babbage (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High concept?

Could someone please explain what that means? (And while you're at it, tone down this article, which reads like bad advertising copy.)--24.85.68.231 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final photograph

The caption says "A view of the Sun Bowl and Lake Tahoe from the top of Headwall". Where's the lake? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional text

I removed a lot of promotional text that appears to have been added by the Squaw Valley PR department. If you have a

WP:COI (aka are employed by Squaw), you must self-identify and follow the rules for COI. Dont re-add this promotional text again. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Preserve

Moved here from lede, looks like

WP:OVERCITE
. In mid 2020 the owners of the resort acknowledged that the word "squaw" is widely considered to be an ethnic and sexist slur, and the company spokesperson Christine Horvath stated that the business was creating a plan to review the use of the term and possibly remove it from the resort's name.[1][2][3][4][5] Maybe someone can show the exact text of the company's acknowledgement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC) @Castroyesid: i moved your text here, as it looks like a POV. This is not an article about the term, this is an article about the ski resort. Since this is a controversial topic, you are going to need to justify it here on talk and provide quality sources first. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations from the lede were moved down to the controversy section because complaints (IIRC, from you) that they cluttered the lede. Then a POV-pushing IP (actually, someone using a now-blocked proxy server) blanked the content from the lede. Then you complained the cites weren't needed. The additional moves to rename the site support keeping the content about the name controversy in the lede, so I have undone the blocked IP / proxy blanking. The fuller cites are now back in the controversy section to keep the lede uncluttered. -
☼ 20:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@

WP:WIKIVOICE text stating this term is 'widely accepted to be a slur'. Is there consensus on this somewhere? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-06-115301-3
    .
  2. ^ Schulman, Susan (16 Jan 2015). "Squaw Island to be renamed 'Deyowenoguhdoh'". The Buffalo News. Retrieved 14 April 2019. The proposed name change comes at the request of Native Americans, who say the word "squaw" is a racist, sexist term
  3. ISBN 978-0-8108-7709-2
    .
  4. ^ King, C. Richard, "De/Scribing Squ*w: Indigenous Women and Imperial Idioms in the United States" in the American Indian Culture and Research Journal, v27 n2 p1-16 2003. Accessed Oct. 9, 2015
  5. ^ Hoplamazian, Mara (19 June 2020). "Squaw Valley to discuss removing slur against Native Americans from California resort's name". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
Who disputed it besides you? Blocked proxies are to be reverted. You're now abusing templates by saying one edit with discussion is edit-warring. You are misrepresenting policy. The text about it being a slur is sourced: In the sources you've tried to remove. -
☼ 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I've reverted Jtbobsayssf and added the official statement from the president:“While we love our local history and the memories we all associate with this place as it has been named for so long, we are confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the term ‘squaw’ is considered offensive,” and the announcement that it will be renamed. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Globalise the naming issue?

I've just come across this drama. The sentence "The use of the word squaw is considered to be a derogatory and offensive ethnic and sexist slur" is screaming out for a {{by whom}} tag to be inserted after the word "considered". Maybe a {{when}} tag as well. I am sure the right thing is being done in the renaming exercise, and that our wording is reflecting the sources being used, but this Australian only knows of this place as a one time host of the Winter Olympic Games. This would be the case for many outside the USA. (Remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia.) Naturally we in this part of the world haven't heard much if anything about the problem with the word "squaw", so until today, I didn't know it was considered derogatory. It obviously wasn't considered derogatory in 1960 (or at least not by anyone who was being listened to back then) when the Games were held there, and it attracted major international attention with the current name. Squaw Valley is famous internationally and historically. I would love to see those points somehow reflected in our wording about the naming issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unaware then you need to read the articles and the sources. It doesn't need to be flagged as it's abundantly sourced, in this article as well as in
☼ 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I also support
WP:WIKIVOICE that there is a consensus on this issue. We need a consensus of high quality secondary sources that says there is a consensus, not this circus on this talk page. Is there any evidence that there is consensus of the secondary sources? Or do we need to do an RFC on it? Has there already been an RFC over at main Squaw article? I am guessing that an RFC should be done on that page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
CorbieVreccan - Your aggression and nastiness there is unhelpful. I am not one of the "disruptive, now-blocked, proxy IPS" over whom you seem to have become very worked up. I am not denying there is a problem with the word, now that I HAVE read the material. I am simply pointing out that a lot of people outside the US won't have done that, and deserve a bit of an explanation. This is not just a matter internal to the US. And it needs to be well explained, in a balanced and objective way, to people unaware of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about my reinstated content is being misrepresented. What was deleted was accurate (and fairly obviously). When contentious content is involved we should always do a search to see if the issue has been updated, not just delete. HiLo48 Corbie wasn't saying you were an IP, that should be obvious and she didn't make a personal attack on you - however your comment about her looks very much like one. I appreciate your desire here and elsewhere to have a global perspective, but you need to also make some practical suggestions, including sources, not just expect others to do it. I have no idea how we can add a global perspective on the issue. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTNP). This is patently false and contradicts Wikipedia policy. Have you added secondary sources that show that this term is widely accepted, or is it still based on the sources that you reinstated? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This is getting silly/annoying as that is not my position. Here is what I did.[1]. Are you saying that "squaw" is not an ethnic slur, that these sources don't say it is, or what? I don't see the word "widely" in the text I edited, and I have no idea why you are suggesting that the term is widely accepted as it isn't. I presume that was a mistake. If you still think the sources don't back the text, go to RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are annoyed doesn't change the Wikipedia policies. I moved the longquote down to the article body, and tagged the primary source you re-added. Obviously a
WP:WIKIVOICE here. Find decent sources or delete it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
JT, this POV push of yours is a continuation of when you misrepresented sources in the main article. You claimed a published book "failed verification" and removed it, among other things. You continually misrepresent sources and policy and hope no one will notice. It is clear what you are doing here. Take it to RS. Your attempt to misrepresent policy may work on those unfamiliar with WP, but not here.
☼ 21:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
As per
☼ 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please discuss my words, rather than me. But don't stress too much. I can see this is far too emotional an issue for some for me to expect rational responses from everyone here, so I'll be off. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronicle source is an excellent source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of text at Squaw Valley Ski Resort saying that the name is controversial

The text you deleted said in part "The name is controversial because squaw is an ethnic and sexual slur". That's clearly true, and blanking that is pretty close to vandalism, especially when the president of the resort has stated that “While we love our local history and the memories we all associate with this place as it has been named for so long, we are confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the term ‘squaw’ is considered offensive". Doug Weller talk 13:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: That quote and source could be added. I didn't see any source like that in what I deleted. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you deleted accurate and sourced text. Besides not checking the web, as you reverted after the statement. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: So you confirmed I didn't miss anything. You mean I was supposed to Google the answer, rather than look at the sources? That is not the process at Wikipedia. If content is not supported by the sources, it gets deleted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's my process and I hope that of a lot of other editors. It's our responsibility to keep articles as up to date when possible when there's a contentious issue. So yes, I do searches a lot to see what the current situation is. And I repeat, you deleted accurate information. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we can take up this discussion on the article talk page. It is not the primary job of editors to keep articles up to date, rather it is to determine articles have verifiable information. Wikipedia follows the sources, and is by definition never up to date. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: I agree with @Doug Weller:. I too see problems that you create. The last two edits you made on Squaw Valley were problematic.
You redundantly added references, which have already been correctly used, to locations that are not logical. You moved a sentence from the lede to the section about the Squaw name change and didn't check to see that you put it above the exact same information. You really need to be more careful when you edit and then be more careful when you proofread.
About the "excessive paragraphs in WP:LEDE". The guidance indicates the lede "should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". And though guidance says "four paragraphs", a fifth paragraph isn't really breaking any hard and fast set-in-concrete Wikipedia rule. There are five paragraphs in the current article, please don't reduce it to four. The statement about Squaw Valley hosting the Olympics is a seminal event and needs to be visible in its own paragraph. Paragraphs are useful to the reader, big blocks of words are not the best method to invite the reader nor does it add for a quick understanding of the material; and, this an important consideration in a lede.
I am moving this section to the Squaw Valley talk page as it brings up some important information which could benefit from further discussion.
Osomite hablemos 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the single-sentence paragraph in the lede (about the Olympics) is useful (or meets
WP:MOS)? Is this an attempt to add additional weight to that summary? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. Looking at Squaw Valley through history, what would be the most notable and significant event that ever occurred there? Without a doubt, it is the hosting of the 1960 Winter Olympics. To repeat my view of lede content from above.

Paragraphs are useful to the reader, big blocks of words are not the best method to invite the reader nor does it add for a quick understanding of the material.

About your point, "an attempt to add additional weight"; I don't understand your objection. Is it to MoS guidance of "normally no more than four paragraphs"? "Normally" is guidance, not a rule. And, about "meets
WP:MOS
"; the MoS is a pretty big tome. Can you be more specific about what your objection is? Or was it solely your concern about a lede being "normally no more than four paragraphs"?
Osomite hablemos 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are trying to add additional weight, which I have no problem with. I moved it into the first paragraph, so now the weight is higher. Looks crazy as a stand-alone paragraph; I can't believe this is even being discussed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Once again, as I pointed out above, you are making edits that are problematic. You are clearly a disruptive editor seeking the attention of an edit war.
OK. Here is some appropriate attention, but, sorry, no edit war.
My, my my. Aren't you being petty? A one-sentence paragraph in the lede is really bothering you.
In tacking the sentence "Squaw Valley was the host site for the 1960 Winter Olympics." onto the first paragraph you have violated the "rule" of what the first paragraph is supposed to be about.
I just had a thought: the sentence "Squaw Valley was the host site for the 1960 Winter Olympics." probably should be the first sentence of that paragraph to fully meet the criteria of a "higher weight". Hmmm, I am going to think about doing that edit.
I guess there is no reasoning with you as you incapable of following and understanding a logical discussion and doing what is logically correct.
Apparently you are incapable of understanding the concept of lede readability. You are really hung up with the MoS lede guidance of "normally no more than four paragraphs". A four-paragraph lede is guidance, it is not a rule. Other than that, what is your reason for being so contrary? (And you have the temerity to complain about "this even being discussed" but continue with what you probably think is a clever passive-aggressive edit). You didn't need to do what you did. Why did you do it? Is it an irresistible need to enforce nonsense? Your arrogance is very appalling. Out of spite, you do something that is quite stupid. Are you pleased with yourself?
As I have pointed out several times, the lede for this article really needs to be improved. If someone else doesn't undertake the effort, at some point, I will return and clean it up.
Osomite hablemos 05:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve it, but don't keep adding a single-sentence paragraph in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have again deleted the resort name saying it is controversial. We need a source for this, and the current AIM source is unrelated to this article. It was being used to

WP:SYNTH a statement to say that the use of it was controversial here. Maybe that Chronicle source can anchor it? Does it refer to the Squaw Valley name being controversial? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Wikipedia guidance
.
It seems that this new single sentence could be resolved in the same way you resolved that last single sentence that was causing you great turmoil. It could be "tacked" onto the first paragraph. According to your methods, this would be quite appropriate.
I have made an edit that fixed your disruptive editing that removed relevant accurately sourced text. Hopefully, it will relieve your cognitive dissonance as it no longer contains the word "controversial". This edit seemed obvious if your concern was with the use of the word "controversial". Why couldn't you see how to make a constructive edit rather than a deconstructive edit by just deleting content?
However, the single-sentence paragraph you created remains.
The next time you edit, please think about what you're doing, read what you have edited, and make sure you improve content rather than exacerbate. Once again, as I pointed out above, you are making edits that demonstrate your disruptive behavior.
Additionally, the next time you edit, make the effort to enter a proper edit summary that actually documents your edit. Your lazy "citing" of
WP:SYNTH
was inadequate.
Perhaps it is time to request an admin to review your disruptive editing on this article and others and determine what sanctions would be appropriate.
Osomite hablemos 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can report whatever you like. Normally you would make such a report at
WP:SYNTH has been resolved. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Does the article title "Palisades Tahoe" violate
WP:COMMONNAME
?

Editors have been quick to change the name of the article with today's announcement. However, does the name violate

WP:COMMONNAME? Bahooka (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

It probably does for now. Until the new name becomes common usage, the old name should probably remain. Outside the USA, and probably even there apart from among those currently involved in the snow sports industry, the main usage of the name of this place is in regard to it being the venue for the 1960 Winter Olympics. I doubt articles about those Games will change their usage to the new name for a long time, if ever. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that it violates
RisingStar (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
For now, the sources written after the name change announcement seem to use the new name. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting piece of policy. Pretty much every source so far written after the change is explicitly about the change, so hardly an objective sample. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice source(s)

Came across this KQED source, with a lot of depth. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this from sfgate today with nice depth about new gondola. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong historical-marker plaque

The photograph of a California Historical Landmark (CHL) plaque is incorrect. #723 and #724 both relate to "Pioneer Ski Areas in America," but #723 is many miles away near Johnsville. #724 is the landmark at what is now called Olympic Valley (can't be sure if the original plaque is still there since the name change). Rontrigger (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palisades_Tahoe&oldid=1218512567"