Talk:Osoyoos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg

Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

“O-SOY-use” vs "O-SUE-use" - I see the latest IPA edit has chosen the former usage; actually both are correct, the latter one is actually older and the more typical BCer usage from about 20 years ago. Either give both, or provide a citation as to why the one is preferable to the other. O-SUE-use is definitely how old-timers in the area say it, and it is/was common on the Coast also. But in those days we hadn't been homogenized by media; and this I'd say is one of the many examples where an old BC pronunication has been supplanted by a more "levelled" Canadian-style pronunciation; my guess is it's a result of new broadcasters in the province setting the standard for everyone else; without actually having visited the palce they're giving the weather report on. I'm old-fashioned and concerned with BC's rapidly-disappearing old identities - O-soy-use vs O-sue-use is one of these changes; who made teh call that the forme one is the correct one anyway?Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the British Columbia Geographical Names Information system listing, the pronunication is "soo-yoos", which incidentally mirrors the original Okanagan language pronunciation, which O-soy-use does not; also O-soy-use in particular tends to become O-soy-Es where E is a schwa; I've also heard that on the end of O-sue-yEs (again E=schwa). Also -use in both cases makes it seem like the 's' shoudl be voiced, which it's not; I'm changing it to the BCGNIS listing's pronunciation, which in anglicized spelling is "soo yoos" only, but I'll put the customary O- on the beginning; although again if you hear old-timers or "true Okanaganians" it's missing hte O when pronounced in regular conversation - "you goin' down to 'sooyoos?".Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I included teh recently-subtituted "soy" pronunciation alogn with the O-version of "soo-yoos", which is the official pronunication. Second consderation about the soemtimes-final-schwa described above is that mabye /ʌ/ is closer than a schwa; but that's not official anyway, just "vernacular" or casual. /ʌs/ may be a more accurate rendering of "soo-yoos"; I adapted teh IPA from the O-sue-use version for the "soo-yoos" IPA.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

desert criticism

Is it really necessary to go in to one's personal view of what and where is a desert and what kind of motivations there maybe for why the area is refered to as a desert? Seeing as this whole section has no references I suggest it be removed unless someone has specific citations that confirm these claims. Macutty (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a desert, it's a shrub steppe according to defs used elsewhere in wikipedia; it's a desert in tourist-promotional ways only, not in strictk geography; the article so far written Nk'mip Desert is clearly a branding effort by the assocait4ed vinyards, as there is another desert centre in Osoyoos that does not specify Nk'mip's location, nor does it use its name. Osoyoos is no more desert than Ashcroft or Spences Bridge are - desert-like, yes, but not desert. Osoyoos' own tourist literature makes loud noises about being the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which is poppycock.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to wiki's definition of a desert (<10" of annual rainfall) Osoyoos would be considered a desert. Although the Köppen climate classification may view this differently it is certainly not the only classification used and should not be used to otherewise dispute a genereal definitiion of a desert. Not sure why you have such an issue with this, seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill really.... 206.108.31.34 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to take WP as a reference, according to the tables Osoyoos receives well over 12" of precipitation, thus rendering its climate semi-arid, not arid. Looking at it from a vegetational point of view, the vegetation is stated to be steppe brushland, not desert (a few small cacti don't make it desert). Many people tend to call places with dry climates "desert", but this is not climatologically correct. The desert.org site is biased and definitely not a reliable source. Is WP an encyclopedia or a tourist brochure? Koppenlady (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but unless you can find reliable sources to state your position the article will be reverted. Appreciating the fact you seem to be a self appointed "expert" on the subject, thats not enough to satisfy wiki policy. Nice try though! Usintg table data to draw a conclusion is OR 206.108.31.34 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon IP, it is you that requires reliable sources. I'm not a "self apponted expert", but I am a WP editor that clearly sticks to WP:NPOV, something I think you need to brush up on. Again, these local tourism sites have very little credibility. These are scientific and academic journals: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc., etc.... None of them support a desert climate for Osoyoos. The table data you solemnly refer to as "OR" is, in fact, "pure" fact; it is not WP:OR... you obviously haven't grasped the concept of using a primary source where available. Finally, this map shows your dream that Osoyoos sits "at the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert" to be a fallacy. Unless you can come up with a reliable, unbiased source that lends any sort of credence to this "desert in Osoyoos" myth, I will continue to revert. Koppenlady (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have provided sources outside of just local tourism sites and yet you continue to revert. You seem to think that analyzing Enviroment Canada data and comparing it against the Köppen system to draw a conclusion is not OR and I believe you are wrong. You need to find a source that is deemed more reliable that what I have provided that specifically states that Osoyoos IS NOT a desert. As far as POV it is you who continues to revert based on your interpretation of data against a classification system that is only one of many and regardless, is your own conclusion drawn from the data. The enviroment Canada data may well support that where their weather station is located enough rainfall occurs to be classified as something other than a desert based on the Köppen system, but you have not provided any reliable source that specifically states this, so in fact you are pushing POV based on OR. Besides, who's to say that in locations other than where the weather station is located that the rainfall is not low enough to meet the classification? Please find a source, more reliable than mine that states Osoyoos is not a desert. Thanks 206.108.31.34 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This should go to some sort of dispute resolution now.

For what it is worth, I have no real opinion in this matter, but the edits that the IP/Niel.bd's keeps on inserting seem to contain one third-party reliable source (The Toronto Star) and three primary/unreliable source (desert.org, the town's site, outbackevents ).

This is possibly just a matter of semantics, and I believe if time was spent compromising/phrasing it correctly, it could make both parties happy when still conveying what both of you want to. Also please note the content of the source from Stephen Hume that I wrote below. I believe this is a good summary of both sides of the issue that could be incorporated in the article. I provided info on the book so it can be properly cited. Also to IP/Niel.bd's, you should be formatting your citations fully in the future, see Referencing for beginner. Hope this helps. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but I just happen to be reading an anthology of essays about BC by Vancouver Sun Columnist Stephen Hume. This is what is says:

For this is Canada's true desert: a dessicated finger of the great Sonoran desert that reaches up through the rain shadow all the way from Mexico; a stark mummified reminder that the real geography of this continent runs north-south and mocks the temporary east-west scratchings of political cartography. Technically, this tawny expanse of grass and drought-blackened scrub in an antelope-brush ecosystem, although here in the south Okanagan they like to call it their "vest-pocket desert."

(page 24) --CutOffTies (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it fair and encyclopedic to refer to a couple of journalists' quotations as a reliable source, especially ones writing a "travel" piece for a newspaper piece. Are they expert climatologists? Are they shielded from the populist sentiment that is based on local tourism and property boosting? I think the bold quote above by Steven Hume is quite clear and accurate (at least he did some homework).

Of course I am not going to find a source that specifically says "Osoyoos has a desert climate"... because one simply doesn't exist! Believe it or not, Osoyoos is not that important! You seem to think the references I noted above are WP:OR because they don't specifically say Osoyoos... Well, inputting GIS info and looking at maps and application software that exist in one of the sites I noted above is not OR... I'm not drawing maps myself, nor am I drawing my own conclusions- it's as simple as punching in the coordinates! Try it- download the free software for yourself.

By the way, apart from a very marginal piece of "journalsim" and a few local tourist sites, you cannot find a single reference saying it is desert. You have nothing but fluff. The various climate maps, many of which are on Wiki, clearly display the Osoyoos area as BSk (Semi-Arid or Steppe), not desert. By the way, the only area in BC that indicates BWk (cold desert) is a patch south of Kamloops/ east of Merrit, quite a distance from Osoyoos.

To digress for a moment, I've spend an hour of my own research on Osoyoos. I've found that Osoyoos pol;iticians and businesspersons have been trying to promote the town under false pretenses- some years back it billed itself as some sort of "Spanish" enclave, and began to promote fake pseudo-Spanish architecure. This more recently morphed into an equally displaced "southwestern" adobe theme. It's only natural that a town that desperate would promote the "desert" to go with it. I don't get it... it's a beautiful and unique place without this disneyfication. It should promote what it is, not what it's not.

In any event, I welcome someone to start the dispute resolution (CutOffTies?). I will not have time as I'm off to England and will be in holiday mode for a while. See you in late September. Koppenlady (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

reading your response, I feel that you have missed the mark somewhat. Specifically: what you are doing is exactly what is considered OR on wiki. Wiki is not about what is factually correct, but rather what can be verified by (reliable) references. Additionally, (obvious from your name) you seem to think that Wiki has adopted the Koppen system as the defacto standard for climate classification. There are other systems, and just because data you have found, and then input or compared aganst the Koppen model produces an outcome that supports your views does not make it verifiably true. It also becomes obvious from your digression that you have personal critical thoughts and views towards the town, its politicians, and business leaders based on what you percieve to be an attempt to market itself (highly POV). And as I digress, there was never any efforts to "market" Osoyoos as a spanish enclave but rather they highlighted the fact in tourism literature that throughout the 60's, 70's and 90's Osoyoos was home to one of the largest per-capita contingents of PORTUGESE outside of Portugal. This is backed by census data if you'd like to verify. You seem bent on disputing statements and claims made by numerous sources and have yet to provide any source to state they are false or inaccurate. I support this being moved to resolution (although I'm unfamiliar with the process TBH) as I would like to get a neutral 3rd party to review whats been presented so far. 209.91.107.253 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record- I have nothing against the town, its politicians or its business leaders. I was simply curious to find the origins of these displaced "desert" and "southwestern" themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppenlady (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sonoran Desert doesn't even extend to southern Nevada, let alone Canada.[6] [7]. Osoyoos is indeed located in the rainshadowed intermontane area that extends from Arizona and California up to Central BC. The phenomena that create the dry conditions in the Sonoran desert and these intermontane areas are entirely distinct. Going by the Koppen system, Osoyoos does not have a desert climate [8] (though curiously, an area NW of the Okanagan Valley does have a desert climate). The calculations pertaining to this are as follows criteria for calculations:

Average temperature of 10.6°C (avg. high of 16.8°C + avg. low of 4.4°C, divide by 2), multiply by 20. 50.1% of the annual average precipitation of 317.6mm falls in the high sun months (April through September), so we add 140. This makes the precipitation threshold 352mm. Arid/desert climates have annual average precipitation less than 50% of the threshold, while Osoyoos' precipitation is 90%. Osoyoos is semi-arid, not arid, and is located in a steppe, not a desert. The sources the IP user is referencing are using a definition of "desert" that is, at best, ad hoc. These sources are using the word in a non-systematic and colloquial way, and it seems rather obvious that many of these sites are using the incorrect desert classification to draw tourists. Please forgive any lack of clarity and cohesion in my paragraphs; I'm in a state of sleep deprivation. 1brettsnyder (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

brettsnyder, koppenlady, and I am against the IP/Niel.bd's edits, and I have reverted. As stated, there is only one source that looks credible and koppenlady makes a good argument not to cite it. Since no one is going to initiate dispute resolution, I will start with eliciting feedback from the wikiproject Geography of Canada. I ask that you leave the desert stuff out until an opinion is received, chiefly because you keep on adding sources that are not reliable third-party sources. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history, and it looks like only one edit by Niel.bd favoured the side saying Osoyoos is in a desert. All his previous edits regarding this subject were made in favour of Osoyoos not being located in a desert. I'm thinking maybe he/she saw that someone had edited the page again and mistakenly reverted an edit he/she would have agreed with. I wouldn't want either Niel.bd or the IP editor to be mistakenly accused of sockpuppetry. 1brettsnyder (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I see that now. I've made some strikethroughs. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution attempt

I have made this post Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Canada#Dispute_on_Osoyoos.2C_British_Columbia to try to elicit some knowledgeable third party opinion on this matter. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks COT. I'm good with waiting on some feedback before further edits to the article. I should mention, that in reality I can see how the technical Koppen classification seems to fit for Osoyoos not being a desert, but at the same time I take issue with Koppen being selected as the wiki defacto standard (in the academic world it certainly has not) and furter, an editor taking it upon themselves to use the formulas provided by the koppen systems to perform OR based on Enviro Canada data to generate a result to support their personal view of dubious marketing attempts by a local gov and businesses. It's just not acceptable on wikipedia to do so (even if you happen to be right.....wiki is not about whats right or factual, but rather what can be cited using reliable sources). 209.91.107.250 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to get my two cents in before I fly home... Koppen is by far the most common climate classification system, even in the academic world, so in most instances it IS the de facto system. In addition I, and other editors, can point to Koppen maps- not just data- to show that Osoyoos is located in a Semiarid regime. The data we input simply backs it up.

Nonetheless, in an attempt to be neutral, I've looked at two other (albeit less common) systems: Thornwaite and Trewartha. Thornwaite clearly shows Osoyoos as Semiarid (D) in this detailed map (just zoom in to the Osoyoos area, just below Penticton). It falls within the -33.3 range, like much of the southern Okanagan. Again, the only Arid (E) zone (<-66.7) in all of Canada is a patch near Kamloops. Trewartha also shows it as Semiarid, as in this map.

So, it seems the onus is on the IP to find a reliable source supporting the Desert climate. Having said that, I could live with some sort of wording that includes this common perception of Osoyoos as being in a desert- so long as the scientific climate systems are in the forefront. Koppenlady (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it's been several weeks now since the dispute resolution was requested and unfortunately we haven't had any new input from other users. In an effort to find a conclusion that works for everyone (consensus) I suggest keeping the Koppen data and climate explanation but including reference to the fact the Osoyoos is commonly referred to as Canada's only desert. With the google search "osoyoos + desert" returning approximately 57,000 results we cannot simply ignore this and stick to just the Koppen technical data. Further, it's common knowledge (even if technically incorrect) amongst western Canadians that Osoyoos is considered Canada's only desert. Rather than start another revert war, I'll leave this post here for a couple weeks to allow everyone to add their thoughts and feedback. Please share your thoughts and/or propose wording and placement suggestions for the content. 207.81.141.208 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine solution. 1brettsnyder (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been "away" (in wiki-exile) so didn't see the dispute resolution thing; be aware that there were two articles about this, one of them from Nk'Mip vinyards promoting THEIR "desert centre" as the only one, and the other on the Okanagan Desert Centre on the other side of Osoyoos. This is ALL tourism hype, as is the town's erstwhile claim to being the northern limit of Spanish expeditions in search of Eldorado (which is bunk). Osoyoos isn't appreciably drier - or hotter -than other locations in the BC Interior, including nearby Oliver and Keremeos. It's fine to say "Osoyoos bills itself as Canada's only [true] desert" but to that the rider must be added "but it's not" and "several other places make the same claim" (including Point Pelee in Ontario and somewhere up around Old Crow in the Yukon). And about that google of 57,000 hits - I just tried "Lilloooet+desert" and got 328,000 hits, "Keremeos+desert" 191,000 hits, "Penticton+desert" 72,100 hits, "Kamloops+desert" 558,000 hits, "Merritt+desert" 525,000 hits, "Lytton+desert" 164,000, "Ashcroft+desert", 184,000, "'Cache Creek'+desert" 87,700 hits, "Savona+desert", 69,700 hits...the only one so far less than Osoyoos I've found is Spences Bridge with 3,800 hits but that's only because there's hardly anything ON Spences Bridge. So if you were thinking of using Google as a way to "prove" Osoyoos' extravagant claims about its "unique desert climate", think again....Skookum1 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Skookum. On the subject of google, what may be a better reflection is the search term "canada's only desert" which is almost exclusively result pertaining to Osoyoos. Further, both the Calgary Herald and Tornoto Star (albeit in travel/life sections) report on Osoyoos being Canada's only desert:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Couple+finds+desert+dream+Canada/3511114/story.html http://www.thestar.com/Travel/article/655324

My thinking was for something along the lines of: "although commonly refered to as Canada's only desert, Osoyoos technicaly is classified as semi-arid

What do you all think? 206.108.31.36 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears we also have an oficial government press release backing up this claim which I think would be difficult to dispute as a reliable source: http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/77_3233.asp 206.108.31.36 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable??! In the age of the sponsorship scandal and BC's own propaganda=machine the Public Affairs Bureau, and the lockdown of advertorial consultants on political discourse in this country - no, government sources are not "reliable", not in the slightest; anything but. In this case the title of that link's article says it all - "Government of Canada Supports Nk'Mip Desert Cultural Centre " - all that's going on is the FedGov is repeating the marketing/branding slogan of the Osoyoos Indian Band, who own/run the Nk'mip Desert Centre, which is a tourist facility adjacent to their four-star (five star?) resort and winery. That the feds are pandering to a First Nations government's business ambitions isn't surprising; they're bankrolling it to start with; of course they're going to agree with the band's claims, true or false (and they're blatantly false...in the nth degree, given so many falsehoods such as it is the end of the Sonoran Desert, which as someone else has noted doen'st even make it as far north as Nevada. As for the marketing phrase "Canada's only desert" showing up in the TRAVEL sections of the big newspapers, that's just as non-reliable-but-oh-so-repetitive as the federal governmen'ts press release; they're just rehashing marketing copy given to them by the resort/winery, which probably also copped them a couple of nice rooms and a basket of wine in the bargain. And still doesn't solve the issue of the OTHER Osoyoos "desert centre", not run by a first Nation, on the otehr side of town; or the very real reality that much of the rest of the Okanagan, especially in key spots like Vaseux Lake and the Skaha Bluffs and at various points along Okanagan Lake, as well as in the Kamloops, Thompson, Fraser and Similkameen areas, are just as dry and just as desert-like as Osoyoos. How can Osoyoos be "Canada's only desert" if Lillooet is also described as a desert town, as is Ashcroft and Lytton. It's one thing for the article to state "the museum and cultural centre attached to the Nk'Mip Winery and Resort complex maintains the site is Canad's only desert", but it's only viable if it'z followed by "however, another desert museum/centre on the other side of town makes a similar claim, and various other towns in the Interior of British Columbia are also considered to be "desert towns". figure it out; quoting spam/advert material as if it was a reliable source, 'even if' it's in a federal government documwent or major national newspaper travel section, doesn't mean it's right, or reliable.Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

~WHOA! Easy cowboy.....I think you're missing the point. We've already established above that according to technical classification systems Osoyoos cannot be classified as a desert in the scientific sense. We're now working to resolve the issue that across BC and AB (and likely other parts of the country) Osoyoos is COMMONLY REFERRED TO as Canada's only desert regardless as to whether or not it is true. I appreciate you have personal views on the reliability of gov and business sources for info, but their factual accuracy and motives are not part of the discussion, we just want to find consensus on who to include the very common reference to Osoyoos being Canada's only desert (whether accurate or not...)/ Please tone down your response, keep it civil, and lets stay on topic. 207.81.141.208 (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

to clarify, again, the point that the travel-mag and especially the federal government's repetition or a marketing slogan is in a very real way a COI source, i.e. there is a conflict of interest (baskets of wine on the one hand, government funding liabilities on the other) and a decidedly biased point of view by those repeating the slogan - and it is a slogan, and nothing more. It is also not "commonly referred" to as Canada's only desert, except by those repeating that slogan. It's certainly not "commonly referred to" as such by teh citizens of Lillooet or Kamloops or Keremeos, who would (and do) scoff at such a claim. I AM being civil, as those who know me well know I'm capable of being very uncivil if riled enough; I'm just voluble and intent on hammering home the point that citations parroting the business promoting this slogan do NOT qualify as "reliable sources", and if anything are explicitly COI and POV in nature, and by definition. They also, even if neutral, are not proof of "commonly referred to"; they are three in number only. "It is widely repeated that Nk'mip is "Canada's only desert", but it is not actually a desert and is no more desert-like than many other locations in British Columbia, including the Okanagan Desert Centre on the other side of Osoyoos from Nk'Mip".....get it now? You're trying to use that one site's own brag about itself, repeated through friendly media and political agencies, to warrant the phrase "commonly referred to as", which is just not factual and is - even though well-intended on your part - a complete and utter falsehood.Skookum1 (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This phrase of yours irks me:

We're now working to resolve the issue that across BC and AB (and likely other parts of the country) Osoyoos is COMMONLY REFERRED TO as Canada's only desert

"across BC and AB" is rather presumptive, don't you think? If you mean among coffee-drinkers on Robson St and 14th Ave SW quoting from a travel article's blather, that's hardly "across BC and AB"....there is no such isntance of "commonly referred to" and I submit if you spent some time calling the Chambers of Commerce and museums in the OTHER desert towns, they'd think you were simply trying to push Osoyoos' own particular agenda, or else wonder how clueless you could be about their desert-like realities. You're positing a point here, as if it was something "we" all accepted as if it were true, but "across BC and AB" is even more fabricated in nature than "commonly referred to as"....Skookum1 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap....you have no interest in finding a consensus or making any kind of concession do you? Here is another (what you will say is unreliable) reference to support the claim, or should I say demonstrate is commonly referred to: http://www.canada.com/topics/travel/story.html?id=f8d104e8-9497-4850-a913-e07ae63a0578

So far that's 3 widely recognized, nationally read news papers from Vancouver, to Edmonton, to Toronto all making the same assertion and all having been upheld as reliable sources thousands of times across wikipedia. Following that we have an official press release from the Federal Government. But you have yet to do anything other than say its nothing but an evil government backed corporate conspiracy....without providing anything other than your own opinion to back it up. I'd like to get some feedback from others to see where a consensus amongst those looking to find one may be. 207.81.141.208 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

CONSPIRACY THEORY?? Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is not a reliable source for environmental/ecological matters, nor are travel magazines, and that those travel magazines/newspapers are just lifting copy provided by the OIB/Nk'Mip Winery doesn't make them verifiable nor valid in any way. Environment Canada would be the verifiable government source, another would would be BC's Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Forests. Newspapers are only valid sources for items like actual news events, not for quasi-scientific tourism bumpf/brags. And that it's obvious that the search-line "Canada's only desert" is a slogan pushed by Osoyoos, of COURSE a google search for that phrase will only turn up Osoyoos. But combinations of other town-names with "desert" produce WAY MORE results, suggesting that "across BC and AB" (and the rest of the world), OTHER towns in BC are also "commonly referred to" as being desert towns. What you're trying to do is push Osoyoos' marketing slogan as if it were valid, simply because otherwise-reliable sources have been gullible/cooperative about repeating it. INDEPENDENT sources are needed, and you just won't find them, certainly nto for that phrase (because no other town in Canada presumes to make such a silly brag).Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, you are not empowered to act as judge, jury and master of all things wikipedia. I have followed wiki policy, I have tried to find a consensus, but you continue to refuse to accept anything other than your own, person, POV. You hate the gov, you have corporate goals and initiatives, you hate anything other the extreme left wing points of view and there is no place for that here. Find a reasonable, wiki-policy supported defense as to why 4 reliable sources cannot be included in to the article, Your opinion not withstanding of course. The burden of proof is not on me to further demonstrate these sources are reliable, its on you to prove they are not (and again, outside of just your own opinion). In the end, I'm not pursuing an article the states Osoyoos is a desert, I'm just trying to establish that many, many sources, and many people view it as such whether that is factually correct or not. You disagree with the motive and source behind this concept which is fine, but your disagreement with it does not mean it doesnt exist (right or wrong). You continue to seek to use the wiki platform to push your views, your own page discusses how wiki should be:

• Truth is not a POV, it is the truth
  • NPOV does not mean untruth should given equal weight to the truth.

Yet at the same time one of your other maxims seems to support what I'm trying to do here:

• Wikipedia should seek to reflect reality, not influence it or control it.

Reality is Osoyoos is commonly refered to as Canada's only desert. You can debate the source or motive of such a claim but it doesnot change the fact that in reality it is, in fact, commmonly refered to as Canada's only desert.206.108.31.35 (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Boy, you really are intent on repeating that mantra, aren't you? All that can be said is ""The town bills itself as "Canada's only desert" however the climate is only semi-arid and resembles many other areas of the BC Interior"?", exccept you don't even want to say "the town", you want to specify Nk'mip. It is NOT "commonly referred to as", except in Nk'mip's tourism bumpf which has been repeated by ONE government agency and various travel magazines. Other towns in the region, quite frankly, scoff at Osoyoos' boast, buty they don't get federal government money to build nice "museum centres" for themselves. Your insistence on "commonly referred to" as a phrase is indicative of POV. Oh, and yes, truth is not a POV, it is the truth. And the truth is that Nk'mip is neither a desert, nor is it "commonly" referred to as one....except by the resort's marketing people/literature.Skookum1 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to dive back into this, since my motivation is based on scientific climatic data and not political manoeuvring. Nonetheless, here it goes... It seems we are all in agreement with:

A. Osoyoos has a semiarid climate similar to much of the southern Okanagan area (not Desert/Arid);

B. the town bills itself as 'Canada's only desert".

Thus, I think there is no place for "B" under the climate section. Its' already mentioned under "Tourism" which, I think, is its appropriate place. It should remain as a "qualified" statement, since climatic references do not back that claim. It could have its own sub-heading under Tourism, but do we really want to go down that path? Koppenlady (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Though not directly related to this topic/discussion, whenever I see input from a tourism-spam contributor or a tourism board (e.g. User:TourismUcluelet) I try to refer them to http://www.WikiTravel.org, which is much underutilized by the tourism industry and tourism boards. This is a bit different though, as even there false claims are not acceptable and must be cited as being only that - i.e. claims only. Lillooet promotes itself as a desert town, so do Ashcroft and Kamloops. "There can be only one" just won't wash. The driest place in CAnada, I think, is some cold arctic desert near Old Crow in the Yukon, but even IT isn't officially "desert". "The northern tip of the Sonoran Desert", worded variously, is another bit about Osoyoos that crops up in travel magazines; but it's clearly not true. It's like saying the rainforests of the Chilliwack Valley are an extension of the Amazon jungle....Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rather late to the party, but I've been following this for a few days now...

To make a claim of desert or a link to the Sonoran within the text, a science-based source is needed. So Environment Canada, a well-regarded textbook, a review article that cites a primary source where both are published in peer-reviewed journals - these are the standards needed to change statements about geography. Putting things like "desert" inside of quote marks is a little different, so let's look at that now.

"Canada's only desert" is supportable by multiple sources as a marketing term, thus used only inside quote marks. This fact can be included so long as it's not given undue weight. It is already mentioned once in the article version I read now ("...both of which label the area..."). The sources should be presented there, but that is a neutral presentation of the claim, so no further mention is required.

"commonly known as" ranks up there among the words to avoid. Three sources is not "commonly", it is three sources. To use "commonly known" it is necessary to source a third-party statement to that effect and to qualify it with "by whom?". You can't write that "McDonald's is commonly known as the golden arches" but you could write "within the communities where it is active, McDonald's is widely known as the golden arches [cite global attitude poll]"

Putting aside the Google-counting above, I've seen three new sources presented here (though maybe I missed a few): this is subheaded "Phase III of Spirit Ridge resort offers luxury..." - how reliable does that look? This is why otherwise reliable sources become less so in their nether regions. Especially Real Estate/New Homes and Travel sections are filled with articles about wonderful things which just happen to have full-page ads in the same section. That's not OR, that is reality. Same here except the Star has a longstanding policy of revealing affiliations, just look right below the article text itself, the "subsidized by" bit. The GC press release too is clearly written to support the Nk'Mip development, it is published by Western Economic Diversification Canada and has in the lead paragraph "Embedded in beautiful South Okanagan..." - this too is a puff piece, just from a government department. None of these sources support "commonly known as" or really support anything but that the marketing slogan of the Nk'Mip has had some penetration into the public awareness. There are other articles which discuss marketing, this one is about a settlement. The reliability of these sources in the context where they are used can be taken up further at the appropriate noticeboard.

In summary, the article is fine the way it is - except gotta love that current "intersection of British Columbia and British Columbia" [9] we sure do have our priorities straight here; and a few bits more of puff. Sheesh. Franamax (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this post while conducting a search: [10] Notice that Kamloops is more arid than Osoyoos, and that neither place is even close to being arid by any definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlayoko (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)