Talk:Unity Island

Corrections

Phillip Kenjockety was not a Seneca, he was reputedly the last of the Kah-quas or Neutrals, residents of the Niagara Frontier who were exterminated by the Senecas in the 1650s. His father John and grandfather supposedly were held as prisoners by the Seneca.

The Seneca were not resident on the Niagara Frontier "for centuries." They arrived as refugees from the Genesee Valley in 1780 after being driven from their homeland by the Revolutionary War Sullivan expedition. Their name "Divided Island" likely originates after this time. GullyWalker (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation

Native pronunciation given as ill-formed de-dyo-wə-no-guh-doh, which is probably not what was intended. Can put back if fixed. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

The renaming of Squaw Island as Unity Island is completely bogus. The Buffalo Common Council does not have the ability or authority to unilaterally rename an important geographical feature such as an island or to remove an historic place name which has been in use for over 200 years without any public input. There is an internationally recognized procedure already in place, see United States Board on Geographic Names, which allows for public input to the process. This name change is not yet recognized by New York State, the federal government or any of its agencies as well as Canada and the rest of the world. Even if a legitimate attempt were to be made to rename Squaw Island, the replacement name Unity Island would be unlikely to survive the process, in my opinion. This web page should accurately reflect the current name of Squaw Island with a reference to the local renaming effort. If in fact, a legitimate effort to rename the island is undertaken at some point, then the page should also reflect that. GullyWalker (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, as soon as you can provide a source stating such in direct relation to this topic. I have read what I believe to be all available sources regarding the name change and absolutely none of them mention anything such as you describe above, so that appears to be original research and not appropriate for the article. As it is completely owned by the city, I can't fathom why they wouldn't have the same ability to re-name it such as they would a city-owned street or park. And it's been a while since I've lived in the region, but last I knew Buffalo Common Council meetings were open to the public and therefor allowed public input to the process, in fact many of the articles quote statements made made by local residents at common council meetings regarding the issue (see here for example). Bottom line, all sources say the change is official, none mention USBGN, until that changes the article should reflect what sources say. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Go to the United States Board on Geographic Names web site [1] and search the official Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). Click on "Search Domestic Names" then enter Squaw Island and New York State. You will get a match. Enter Unity Island and you will not get a match. Unless and until this changes, the officially recognized name is Squaw Island and the Wikipedia page is not correct. The Buffalo Common Council has every right to change the name of the city park or a city street, but when it comes to natural features such as Squaw Island, there is a need to maintain uniform geographic usage and there is a body of federal and international law, and in fact, an established procedure and a recognized central authority (the USBGN). GullyWalker (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Still needs a source, or it's original research, sorry. I cite GNIS all the time and it's a handy resource but does not dictate much here in terms of what names must be used. Two can play at this original research game: The USBGN is concerned with standardization within Federal documents and little else. See particularly pages 10-11 of this overview document: "Pursuant to Public Law 80-242, geographic names not in GNIS must be submitted to the Board on Geographic Names for approval before they can be used on Federal maps, charts, and other publications." Critically, among the "factors to be considered" by the USBGN to determine official names (page 12) are:

Legal Usage: A geographic name that appears in a document generated as part of a legal procedure established by a government body; the document may either (1) establish the name, or (2) apply it incidentally in order to identify or locate an area, site, or feature important to the principal purpose of the document. This category includes “legislated usage,” which, because of its importance to the naming process, is given special recognition.

Legislated Usage: A geographic name established by a legislative body--local, tribal, State, or Federal.

If the city decides an island completely under their control has a new name, and sources report it as official (and they have), then that's the name we'll use here, since WP is not a Federal publication and is not beholden to USBGN. This is the name it is known by locally and officially by those entities most concerned with it, and the name used in major news media. If it hasn't been officially submitted to the USBGN then that's just a technical footnote at this point, as it is clear that it would be accepted without any sort of 'public input' process that you allude to above. Find a source that states otherwise and it will make a fine addition or change to the article. This hasn't exactly been ignored by the news media in the region, and not a single source even hints at what you're espousing here. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never understood WP's position on original research. In my mind original research is a good thing, usually correcting something that is in error - primary sources always carry more weight than secondary sources. In any case, the island is as completely under the control of Erie County as it is under city control. The same goes for New York State and I doubt that the state has taken any action to recognize the name change. The federal government has control of a portion of the island and clearly they do not recognize the name change. It boggles my mind that the Buffalo Common Council and others involved are unaware of the implications. Another notable name change occurred recently in New York State, that of East Dix Mountain in the Adirondacks to Grace Peak. That renaming process took 10 years I believe, and with little or no opposition. It certainly isn't clear to me that the name change would be accepted without any sort of public input process because I for one, and others I'm sure will contribute towards that process, once it is begun. GullyWalker (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Squaw Island name change controversy has come before the US Board on Geographic Names. See Active Review List 425 at this address: http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/quarterly_list.htm GullyWalker (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a good source, thanks for pointing it out. I've added a bit about the current status based on its contents. Do you know if this has been receiving any local press coverage? I haven't looked, though I may later tonight; if something has been reported describing it as a controversy, then that would be a good addition as well. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any local press coverage yet. Not sure how long that has been out there or if anyone is aware of it yet. GullyWalker (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The people who live here still use the name that's been in use for over 200 years. 108.183.75.155 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bird Island Waste Water Treatment Plant.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Broderick Park.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)