Talk:Palisades Tahoe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad redirect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  High concept? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The final photograph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Promotional text 

message: 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.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
Maybe someone can show the exact text of the company's acknowledgement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

text: 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. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Preserve 

message: 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  tag to be inserted after the word "considered". Maybe a  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)
replies: text: 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 Squaw. The only times it has not been abundantly sourced have been when POV pushers and disruptive, now-blocked, proxy IPS have removed the sources. Often, ironically, they've removed the sources with the claim that it is over-sourced. A slur used to specifically demean and insult women from the Americas doesn't need "a global perspective" anymore than we need "a global perspective" on slurs used only to demean people in other countries. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support 's position. This is essentially an WP:RGW argument.  admitted on my talk page here that the sources didnt support the content, and went ahead and reverted my deletion of the content anyhow. We use WP:IRS, not some theory to RGW this on to this page due to some WP:SYNTH that if we read a few books by professors (aka WP:PRIMARY) that we will say in 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)
replies: text:  - 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
replies: text:  Your position that you are making here, and on my talk page, is that Wikipedia editors should waive the requirement that content have verifiable sources WP:V. Instead the editor who challenges content should do a Google search (aka WP:OR) and keep content that is not sourced correctly, so that Wikipedia can be up to date (aka 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)
replies: text: This is getting silly/annoying as that is not my position. Here is what I did.. 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)
replies: text: 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:PRIMARY source is not sufficient to anchor WP:WIKIVOICE here. Find decent sources or delete it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As per ... Let's just say that account has a history of this behaviour: Extensive Block Log for HiLo48. CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: The Chronicle source is an excellent source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise the naming issue? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure that it violates WP:COMMONNAME. This Wikipedia policy has a subsection for the case where the subject of the article changes its name.  RisingStar (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does the article title "Palisades Tahoe" violate [[WP:COMMONNAME]]? 

message: Came across this KQED source, with a lot of depth. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice source(s)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong historical-marker plaque