This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article is already great as is, but I have a few suggestions:
More images (easy fair use argumentation IMHO) would greatly enhance the article. Also, several books are mentionned by the end of the article, but there is no bibliographic links fro them, which would be a nice addition. In general, footnotes would also enhance the article.
The final effects on the disputed land are not even mentionned in the article! Bad me! I didn't notice the part about the extension being cancelled.
Finally, the picture currently illustrating the article indicates other acts of support were held beyond Quebec, this should be mentionned in the article, likely in a different section "Support outside Quebec" or something alike. In the same vein, more details about who supported/opposed the Mohawks would enhance the article. Circeus 14:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'll have to figure out how to rephrase that, as there were many incidents of semi-organized native vs. government violence outside of Central Canada which never made the national media radar; especially here in BC I'm thinking of the shooting war in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s between DFO and the local natives (various chiefs were arrested) and more recently on the Lower Fraser and also as I recall in the Skeena. What made Oka different was that it was happening on Montreal's doorstep, i.e. it was going on in Central Canada, and also that CBC Newsworld had instituted an innovative round-the-clock live coverage policy for unfolding events, which gave Oka prime-time status (and top ratings, too); the silencing and muzzling of CBC Newsworld that arose from the Oka Crisis' unofficial (? - no one's ever shown me the paperwork!) imposition of military censorship on the eve of the final ultimatum; Newsworld's original open-air flavour has forever been replaced by talking heads carefully managing information for us, instead of actually just SHOWING us the news, as it had originally done. Now, like all media worth their lying salt, they manage the news for us.... Skookum1 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to someone who'd changed a mention I put into the Meech Lake Accord article:
We need to add more info about what happened after the CF intervened. There was that famous photo of the soldier staring down an armed protestor. Can we include the photo? (probably not). The photo really demonstrated the professionalism of the troops, which deserves some mention. — Pburka 1 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
And as for professionalism, I'm not sure I can deal with that claim (if it's on the main page it's POV) given that the military supported the undeclared state of emergency which stripped Canadians and others of their civil rights, interned people without charges, and also brought down their authority on CBC Newsworld to end the Mohawk's access to the public via live free-speech broadcasting. They may have been "professional" in terms of following orders, not shootin' injuns and so forth; but there's no way the military should be considered "professional" here, and its use for the troops is like saying only "they did their job" (taking orders from superiors, no matter how dubious in political origin....). Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there any mention in the main article concerning the military's blackout and takeover of CBC at the height of the crisis? If it's not mentioned, then not mentioning it is POV. Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your views clearly do have a place in the article, but the more popular POV in the Oka Crisis is that the CF acted with great professionalism; ergo, it must be includeed in the article. I think you should take a step back for a moment and look at it this way: right or wrong - a sub-group of Canadian society in Oka chose to defy the legitimate civil authorities and pursue their agenda through force of arms rather than legal means. The situation was so out of control that the military was called in as an aid to civil power; a job that they are both loathe to do and that politicians are loathe to resort to. I'm not saying everything that happened is right, but it has to be noted that the average soldier involved; many of them only reservists with minimal training; acted with extraordinary professionalism in an extremely harrowing situation.
Easter rising 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There's some good detailed info at the band council's web site. Seems to be largely NPOV. — Pburka 1 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
What is the source for the "playful" water balloon fight and the references to the Mohawks breaking their guns, throwing them into septic tanks, and burning tobacco before they walked home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.170.164 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am adding to this discussion mostly because of the ignorance shown by i can only presume are supporters of the genocide occuring against me and my people. Is this article POV? I am not concerned with whether or not some soldier was on crack when he was there, the real question is Why was he there in the first place! I have noticed that most of the "sources" refered to here by these same people are amibigous at best, plain old lies at most, they presume that since it was written/spoken by the same people who created this situation (non-Natives) that it must be true. Why dont they ask one of us how things really are, to have a better understanding of why situations like this happen, (a good start is Alanis Obomaswin's documentary 270yrs of Resistance) When you realize that it is your government (and by extension yourself) that is responsible for these situations occuring then perhaps we can have a REAL discussion about this. I appreciate Skookums comments on this issue although i do find the reference to identifying herself as an Canadian a bit disappointing, but that is a matter for another time. RedMan11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedMan11 ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, gotta say my piece. I'd reversed this to the way it should be, i.e. how we all heard it described, and how they describe themselves. Who keeps on politically-correcting "Mohawk warrior" into "Mohawk person", and what's your rationale? Mohawk Warrior is fully capitalized, also. Could it be that the lack of capitalization led someone to believe that "warrior" was racist/discriminatory? Nope, it's not, and Mohawk Warriors call themselves that proudly, AFAIK. Skookum1 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
PS when you make a sensitive edit like that, please have a username and sign in before doing so. IP address edits don't help much if there's a disagreement or a need for consultation. Skookum1 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ive added a NPOV tag to the history section of the article, it requires sources from the other side of the question DRCarroll 11:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) -- RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The impression I got from the Iroquois website was that the "Warriors" are a distinct faction, within the tribe but outside the League. They don't recognize the authority of the sachems, and are the ones responsible for the smuggling, gambling, and other illegal activities (kinda like an Iroquois mafia). -- WikiMarshall 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that you have gotten the wrong impression. The Warriors (of any Native Nation) authority comes from the people of that Nation, the sachems (or in my language Giimaa) are only spokepeople, the situation that you describe as for recongnizing the"authority" of these SPOKEPEOPLE, one must look at the long-term history of our Nations, The current political situation on most of the Territories is one of occupation & control by Foreign powers (canada, us etc;) through the band council/tribal council system. As these Foreign systems are NOT indigenous to our people as well as being illegal, they have no authority to implement policy for ANY matter concerning us. As for the mistaken accounts of Indian Mafia I will say this most of the revenue producing activities authorized by the people dont involve Soprano-type deals of ANY kind. This is just misrepresentation of us and insulting to the characters of the people involved. RedMan11 September 25 2006
Redman11, whoever you are (since that's not a Wikisig), whatever your Giimaa are and whatever language that's from, you're making BIG assumptions that all native peoples are the same, and that automatically any outside description of them is "defamatory". The Mohawk Warrior Society is totally unique, though it has copycats among the Miqmaq and certain Western Canadian groups; it is both a political organization and, because it invokes the ancient right to trade cross-border, is heavily and intrinsically involved in smuggling both US-Canada and within Canada (becaus of differential liquor and tobacco taes). They're also typically heavily-armed and many are e-mercss, when not ex-Marines or e-CanForces, and are a known factor in the cross-border weapons trade. Whatever; point is that if the Mohawk Warrior Society DOES have a history of "criminal" involvement, as well as a big role in the violent Mohawk Civil War of the spring of 1990 (just before the Oka Crisis); and close links to the various Quebec bike gangs. Sopranos no, bike gang yes (and the mafia in Montreal are Irish anyway). "Misrepresentation and insulting to the characters of the people involved" you may claim; but if you do bad things, bad things get said about you. Point blank. Wrapping yourself in red skin (y'know, like the flag?) and invoking Mother Eareth doesn't cut it when the truth is involved. Skookum1 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments short sighted and almost assimilationist in character. If you truly did understand anything about our people, you would notice that although our motions(means of action) are not always the same, the basic intent is. I find your comments about copycats from other NATIONS (yes thats right were not canadians or americans) insulting and damaging to those of us who know the history and culture/language of our NATIONS. As for your comment on the Mohawk Civil War, perhaps you should talk to the people and aquaint yourself with the facts before making general judgements, the fact is that the Band/Tribal governments (supported by canada & the us) were attempting to impose their "authority" onto the Traditional people by stripping away what little self-suffienct economic development they had established at that time. As for your other comments on connections with biker gangs and "criminal activities",the so called criminal activities are nothing more then Native Nations asserting their right to be free,The true Traditionalist people would not have anything to do with biker gangs or others like them (and Yes this includes the Warrior Societies) The people who you refer to are the ones who started the Civil Conflict over economics the same ones the canadian & american governments support to maintain their dominance over us. Have you ever talked to them? Have you realized what they and others like them are trying to do for my people? Probably not which is sad :( Since you are not a citizen of a Native Nation I find your comments on subjects of which you know little or nothing about harmful and disrespectful of the struggles which me and my people face on a daily basis, when you have spoken with us and understand why things happen THEN you can speak of it, until then please keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I do not try to be something im not (canadian and/or american) I am Anishinaabek. -- RedMan11 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and so non-Germans should not write on German history, non-Irish on Irish history, and (ahem) non-white people on white history. Look, all I've tried to do is dispute the change someone from ANOTHER NATIVE NATION made (or a p.c.-conscious white-guilt type) from "Mohawk Warrior" to "Mohawk person", because THEY thought that "Warrior" was a racist and prejudicial term. And I can't speak for the Miqmaq Warriors (where I think there's a bit longer tradition) but I do know that certain groups in BC DID imitate the Mohawk Warriors (and don't tell me that's racist, assimilationist crap because YOU DON'T COME FROM WHERE I COME FROM). As for the "Civil Conflict" as you call it, please note I have not attempted to write an article on it, only pointed out that it needs an article; I have no political opinions on it one way or the other and would, in fact, appreciate the Mohawk viewpoint/story which we DID NOT get from CTV etc (NewsWorld was then still un-censored and its live coverage was exactly that: live, and not explanatory or doing the talking-heads thing). Fine, if the whole thing went down because of collaborators with white domination, or however you want to style the Indian Act-derived "governments"; I understand all that. But NONE OF THIS was clear in the Oka Crisis article, and the Mohawk Civil War ("Civil Conflict") remains a blank spot in the story. Now, if you're capable of writing a NPOV history of these events, and you don't mind white people actually READING the story (since, apparently, in your mind, we're not capable of understanding and, besides, we're all the same anyway, right?), then write the article and make the changes. As for calling me an assimilationist, you have no idea how LAUGHABLY wrong you are on that; I fully support (and do support) the full independence of the haudenosaunee just as I do of First Nations in my own province; a devolutionist Canada is where I'm coming from. In the same knee-jerk way Quebecois consider all anglos to be just like Ontarians, you've assumed that because I'm white (I happen to be, but I might have been something else, by the way) I "think like all other white people", I'm an "assimilationist" and worse. Anything but; in fact I regard the devolution of local power to native governments as a first step in constitutional reform in CAnada, and I also think more local power to municipalities (taken from the provs and feds) happens to be the way to go, based on the native model. But I guess my white skin disqualifies me from having an opinion in your world, huh? Funny thing about you native radicals - you quite often can't distinguish between supportive and interested non-natives and those who think you don't matter shit and are a bunch of whiners; I'm in the former group, despite the childish abuse hurled at me over the years by resentful radicals/ideologues such as yourself. Learn to distinguish people by something else than their skin colour, OK? Save your animosity for.....hell, maybe you should read some of the Dalai Lama so you can deal with that animosity of yours, in fact, instead of expecting everyone else to deal with it. Skookum1 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I find your opinion here as hyprocrisy defined, you say you have no opinion or POV on the situation that developed as the results of your governments actions (past and present), yet you refer to the Warriors who were defending their territory and the people on it as "criminals" has already shown to me and others that you dont understand what happened or is continuing to happen to us. I have no problem SHARING as defined in the INTERNATIONAL treaties our governments signed with you, what i do have a problem with is your insistance that we act, think and obey you in all activities. Which is the whole thrust of your agruement against me and others like me who wish to be free of that system. I can site numerous examples of where your government has betrayed, raped, stolen from and murdered (past & present) when it suits your wants. Based on your comments it would be HIGHLY unlikely that you would be able to read let alone understand a NPOV article about us, since this would be at odds with your conception of how and what we should be and what actually happens. The real cause of the "Indian problem" isnt us, its you. When you and others are READY to listen then we can understand each other and finally put these conflicts away and move forward, until then I hope that you take these words and reflect on your beliefs about us and open yourself. -- RedMan11 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your a taxpayer arent you? You vote in the canadian "democracy"? therefore it is your government acting on your behalf. You cannot take credit for one action and deny the other thats called hypocrisy. And what is your obsession with always mentioning that your white? You seem to focus on this a lot in your comments as if somehow mentioning that fact gains you authority over matters of which by your own admission you are not directly apart of. As for your statements that you know more then me, someone who lives it everyday, about oppression against my people not only insulting and arrogant, but another example of your mentality towards us thinking (perhaps subconsiously) that you are somehow superior to us even in matters which we live day to day, like i previously stated but which you seemed to have once again missed, Native Nationalists like myself have no problem sharing the resources and responsiblities of Turtle Island, where we differ is the concept of how. I believe as others do that we are NATIONS subject to our OWN laws and customs, you appear to believe that you have the right to decide for me and others what we can do, how we live, what are rights are. This is called colonialism in other areas of the world, if you are truly sincere in your claim that you support this, start by examining your own attitudes and prejuidices and petition YOUR government to start the process of DeColonization. I know that you will know doubt respond to this and although i would sincerely wish to have a decent and open-minded conversation about this subject, it would be sadly (based on previous posts) be more of the tirade directed towards me for challenging your view of us. -- RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're a reductionist as well as a hate-monger, it seems; denouncing all people who are in the Canadian nation-state for being guilty simply for being in that country by dint of being born in it and co-opted by a once-in-a-while plurality FTPT voting system that is not democracy, only the sham of one; and no, I'm not responsible for the actions of my government, no more than they are for my actions. Most of all the Mulroney government, fer chrissake, or more to the point that of the Mayor of Oka or the Government of Quebec. Being from BC, I have nothing to do with the latter two, and only guilt-by-association-of-being-white-and-having-voted (Green, btw). So what's your deal? You sound like the kind of radical who wants the 300 million non-aboriginals on the continent to go back to where they came from; that's also very realistic of you, and I admire your determination. And where you got the idea that I - I re, man, I - "have the right to decide for 'you' and others what you [we] can do, how we live" etc. I have no FUCKING IDEA where you got that from in my previous post, in which I clearly said the audenosauee had every right to exist as a microstate, including deciding for itself how it's run and how it'll approach things; that I ever said any different is something in your twisted white-hating fantasies. Skookum1 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
?? Violent conflicts between the DFO and First Nations in BC were commonplace in the '70s and '80s, including a "shooting war" in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s. I'm also pretty sure that there were other aboriginal-officialdom conflicts, some of which could be styled "violent", long before Oka. What distinguished Oka is that it was on the doorstep of one of the country's largest cities and was also front-and-centre in then-live coverage on NewsWorld. So "first of a number of violent conflicts" is definitely NOT the right phrasing here. Skookum1 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In Kahnawake, we had a number of violent conflicts during the 1970's as well.-- Arcticmohawk 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
the warrior's society erradicated all the drug dealers out of kahnawake and if you were there you would know what went on and how the media depicted the warriors as villians and thugs like mafia because that is all white people know, native people have been and continuing to be descriminated against even in canada the O, so equal country who promotes peace in among countries in the rest of the world. HIPOCRITES!!!!
Isn't the canonical form of the chant "Le Québec aux Québécois", rather than "Québec pour les Québécois"? Indefatigable 20:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Oui. Skookum1 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Tried to get back to last legitimate version following multiple quite silly vandalism attempts. Someone more familiar with the article might just check that I reverted to the correct place. Abbeyvet 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just checkin' around, think this has been raised (by me) before; the Mohawk Civil War refers to at intfra-Mohawk conflict at Akwesasne-St. Regis a few months prior to the outbreak of the Oka Crisis; I note that the Oka Crisis itself was labelled the "Mohawk Civil War" by the Village Voice, but that's not its proper usage. There's a number of articles/columns about "Mohawk Civil War" if you google that phrase so, unless this article includes a section on the unrest within the Mohawk Nation in the months before Oka, the topic should be broken off and given its own section. One reason I meant to do so is that it also would, or should, qualify under List of United States military history events because it involved the deployment of US troops (who were from the adjacent Messina base and deployed in full-scale occupation of the American side of the Akwesasne Reserve in response to the shooting war on the Canadian side...the US deployment I remember from CBC Newsworld's coverage, I haven't seen it in print since but it must be somewhere i.e. citable). Skookum1 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is "licences" written in quotes? Kahnawake is a respected licensor, affiliated with Gaming Associates.
I did some tinkering with the Historical background section because there were some lexical errors in it and also to see if we could drop the POV tag. I'm not sure what facts are in dispute, so I've tagged a couple of uncited statements (does anyone know the source for the PERC link?) and generally tried to outline the Mohawk claims without endorsing them in the article until we can properly source them. Without starting a pissing match, is there anything more we can do to make the section unPOV? If there's no action in the next couple of days I'll take the label off. Geoff NoNick ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please Assume Good Faith just a little? I see no reason to suggest omissions are deliberate. Yes, the article could use some work. Please, Be Bold and add any content you deem necessary. I haven't heard of any of the things you mentioned, so I can't very well have deliberately omitted them. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's unfortunate, and even shameful that there isn't more information on the Oka Crisis online, but I'm not sure it's a conspiracy. Firstly, there are lots of people on both sides of this issue whom I expect feel stronger about it than you or I do, yet they haven't put information online either. Corporate media largely ignore these issues (unless they have no choice) not because they want to keep it quiet, but because they don't care, and they think most Canadians feel similarly. Sadly, they're probably right. I remember telling someone from Ontario a couple years ago about Caledonia, and she said "Oh yeah, the indians do that every year or so..." Indigenous rights protests are largely treated as non-issues by Canadians... as just whiners and trouble-makers. Protests at Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation (Grassy Narrows) have been going on since at least 2003, and I've never once seen it on the news. Leaders from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation were arrested in March, and it made national news for one night. If a whole municipal council from a non-native community was arrested, it would get press until the matter was resolved. Still, it's systemic bias... same as wikipedia. The Elijah Harper is there, but it's weak, with one reference and no picture. Not a conspiracy or "information washing" just that there aren't enough people who care editing wikipedia. Just you, me, and a handful of others. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy cover-up or not (and I would tend towards the latter), the article itself can be NPOV in the face of the available information. The NPOV tag has a very specific meaning: that the article clearly exhibits a bias in one direction despite documented evidence in the other. What Skookum1 is talking about are things that he has heard happened, but that no credible media outlet has published (unless it has been published, in which case the way forward is clear). That can't really attribute a POV to the article, which is obliged to simply give a fair review of the existing documentation. I would propose that a compromise that might allow us to get rid of the NPOV tag while addressing Skookum1's concerns would be the addition of a "Conspiracy theories" section that would address the fact that there appears to be some belief that some Oka-related events were covered up, without actually entering them into the official record of events. Geoff NoNick ( talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to backpedal a little here and concede that corporate and (in the case of the CBC) national biases do affect media spin. Owners do affect content, particularly editorial. Whatever happened at the time, it's likely that in the case of Oka, both public disinterest after the fact, and conscious editing/censorship by the media have played a part in the lack of information available online now. The problem with claiming "media conspiracy" is that it allows people to make accusations without substantiation ("The media don't report on their own conspiracy!"). That's why the extreme-right and wackos like Gary McHale can make the same case. ("Look! There's no entry on McHale! Wikipedia conspiracy!") As far as wikipedia goes, claiming media blackout sounds like a cop-out. There might be media influence, but we don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship. If something was said, it's not THAT hard to find out. The Conrad Blacks of this country may dominate the media, but they don't control it all. I haven't seen anything online about local whites burning Mohawk effigies and chanting "sauvages! sauvages!" but I saw it in a film (I can't remember if it was Obomsawin's or Welsh's). I'm assuming, Skookum, when you say you "watched it happen" you weren't actually in Oka - you "watched it happen" on TV and in the press. If an anchor invoked the CBC Charter "to promote national unity and prevent regionalism" live on air as a reason to pay less attention to the Oka Crisis, that's fascinating, and should definitely be included. Do you remember at all what night it might have happened? Maybe we can track this down. To much complaining and not enough adding content is a waste of time. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, watching the video of the standoff, I never realised the soldier muttered "motherfucker" at the Native who was staring at him, cursing...I always imagined that scene completely quiet and surreal Sherurcij 02:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
"years after"? I was a member of a non-native solidarity group (Le Regroupement de Solidarite avec les Autochtones)and we mentioned this in our newsletter late 1990 or early 1991. Just goes to show how effective (or not) we were reaching out to non-natives. (I keep signing my post and it doesn't do it: My handle is gatorinvancouver 24.84.210.36 ( talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted that the song North by Paul Mounsey used recorded excerpts from both the front line of this and from news reports covering this event at the start of the song?
It's a bit tad stupid to ask, but i'm listening to the song at the moment and thought it would be of some interest....maybe not. -- mickyfitz13 Talk 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Get real. That is VERY POV. I don't care if the media used it occasionally; they like to sensationalize. The idea that a college kid can throw on a mask and become a warrior is ridiculous. That applies no matter what nationality or race he/she/it is and no matter how worthy the cause they support. I don't edit much lately, and just removed the silliness a while back thinking it blatantly obvious. Along comes a revert claiming the issue was resolved here, which it was not; it was simply asserted that it wasn't POV and replaced.
Perhaps I can become a warrior. I've got a bandanna somewhere. Does it require eyeholes? A2Kafir ( and...?) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A2kakir, as much as I value your opinion, the sources support including the term warrior. Because it's used by both sides, it's the most neutral term. Your opposition to the term without references opposing the use of warrior is Original Research and POV. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Mohawk warriors used this term to describe themselves. It is ridiculous to dispute this. Common A2Kakir Lets get on with more pressing issues. Again another example of how someone or some group will try to defame another based on trivialities and claim "show me the evidence". Please stop this its embarrassing.
Marimanque (
talk) 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
HI, I noticed a couple of citation regarding Ciaccia, I was wondering if any of those are verifiable. I am trying to remember who he was in Obomsawin's documentary. Anyway, the other comment I would like to make regarding some of the assumptions of non-native people living under Canadian rule, and our people are also guilty of this as well. One dicussion centred around smuggling across borders etc, the assumption is that the Haudenosaunee people fall under Canadian law...and we do NOT. Therefore any attempts we incur to assert our treaty rights is met with resistence and hostility, therefore the use of firearms becomes necessary not by our laws but because of Canadian law. It would seem a bit ridiculous if a Mexican police officer came into Canada assuming juristiction and began telling each of the "tax-paying Canadian" what rights they can and can not exercise, in fact I suspect if that be the case each of you would find yourself taking up arms against this man, should he have the power to enforce his law upon you within your own borders...the audicity!!! The main point I believe most of our people are making is it is mainly about perspective and perception. We as the Haudenosaunee, who are educated about our rich history from birth, and we carry that from us throughout our lives, we are born into the politics of our people and most Canadians do not come into contact with us until they reach post-secondary. Therefore, if you can get your head rapped around the idea that we are not Canadian or American, however we are allies or friends of both nations maybe just maybe your mind can open up to the idea that we want peace amongst our friends and that for the most part our people are willing to continue that relationship and it is actually Canada that is the protester and the terrorist, then maybe we can begin to make some honest and geniune steps towards a better tomorrow for all nations and individuals involved without weapons and without violence. Our people "buried the hatchet" prior to contact when the Peacemaker and Hiawatha came into our lives and gave us the Great Law, now thats the law we follow, that is our rule of law. 209.226.250.27 ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Dodayotahahkwane May 15, 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.250.27 ( talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
APPLAUSE. I couldn't have put it better my self. Thanks for this information. Marimanque ( talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
One major theme here is that there is a dispute to control information. There is no neutrality on this subject. For Wiki to assume neutrality as a valid option already compromises the issues at stake and that neutrality will correct how information is published, distributed challenged etc.
In this discussion, those who opposed the OKA standoff are attempting to control the validity of the arguments in this document by citing lack of referencing. This is attributed to A) A lack of insight into how a political and military Crisis occurs and the reality of un-recorded statements made by all parties and B) When a person or group can not refute a position with reason they resort to a Western system of learning which is to say "Show me the evidence". For Western peoples this automatically assumes that for something to be true it must have been recorded on paper, or TV/media. If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear? It is also the most convenient way to oppose, deny and confront those who supportted the OKA Warrior stance.
There should simply be two version of the article and allow for opinions to be heard. Wiki uses a Western system of learning (the "encyclopaedia" ) and validation which therefore assumes evidence must be in some book somewhere. It is discriminatory by the very basis that it believes oral cultures are inferior. The assumption that neutrality is possible is actually a subjective position and discriminates against the presentation of evidence in many cases here. there will always be two positions here. The Winner and the loser. Marimanque ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zipperfish, and as one who watched this unfold on NewsWorld at the time, as a fully-grown and politically-aware adult (I was 34 at the time), there's no way this could be presented if only "reliable sources" as currently defined by Wikipedia could fully and NPOVishly portray this event. The citation request on the one book is typical; a review in a zine or alternative magazine or blog would be dismissed by wiki-cite enforcers, yet no mainstream paper even reviewed that book (which I owned, and might even still, in storage somewhere). And Dhatfield, it's impossible for you to see "serious POV" in this article because unlike people of my vintage (though truly I don't know your age) you didn't watch this unfold 24x7 on Newsworld, nor did you watch the evening that Penny Priddy, until then a low-ranking weatherperson from Winnipeg, was catapaulted to national talking-head anchor delivering military-vetted press releases when the Canadian military seized control of the network. And that's a fact, I watched it happen. Damned if I know where on the internet it's even mentioned, or in which "reliable" source it's talked about. ditto the parallel events at Seton Portage, which wouldn't have gotten known about at all if not for a bad video recording of the dogs and choppers attacking the women and children hadn't been smuggled out of the valley (which was under lockdown); the Vancouver papers - "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia's definitions - suppressed the number of Mounties that were used for the attack, or the fact that ord Robinsers were given in French so no one could understand; it took teh Seattle papers to get the figure right (63, vs 31 stated by the Province, 43 by the Sun); There's lots missing from this article, including the internment of foreign observers and the arrest-without-charges/rights of a few hundred non-natives (including as I recall one Svend Robinson, though maybe tha'ts mentioned). The role of the women's council and Ellen Gabriel and also of Jenny Jack, a Tahltan women from BC who was an intermediary and also kept infringements of the no-go zone by either side in check, is also absent.... ecause it's uncitable because so-called "reliable sources" never reported on it; or if they did, destroyed their archives ofr those reports.....actually it may be that there is full footage of this still somewhere, probably in RCMP/CSIS headquarters, certianly not in any publicly-available archive at e.g. a university, unless someone though to tape the whole thing off-air, as the military seized all of Newsworld at the time, ergo all the tapes....history isn't written by the victors, but it's surely edited by them....as much as they can manage. yeah, it may be that this article can never be NPOV, like so many others in Wikipedia, and it's why I'm leaving, I see it more and more as a venue where vague rules that can be manipulated, tweaked and/or ignored and overridden over each other make it impossible to properly write about anything at all. Wikipedia winds up being a heavily-vetted and ultimately discriminate (as opposed to "indiscriminate") collection of information.....unless alternative media is recognized as a legitimate/reliable source for articles like this one, or APPO (where that redirects to I mean), Wikipedia is destined to become a tool of the media/information-management cabal, a bloated and unwieldy and untrustworthy arm of Big Brother.....even my saying this is being noted down somewhere, I have no doubt of it.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I added an inline comment which I'll replicate here re the way Philpot's book is presented; hate-mongering against ALL of English Canada, not just the media establishment; it's a Quebec confabulation that this was all "our fault" but even more that the media manipulation that went on after was targeted only at aboriginals and (allegedly) francophones; Charlottetown ended in a farce where the media sat there and said "how can we get control of our viewership's minds again??"; I wish I had transcripts, but those were done away with like so much else to prevent and/or are hard to find; certainly not online (Asper destroyed 99% of his acquisitions' archival holdings when he formed CanWest in '93, including reportage of this as well as the events in British Columbia at the same time, similarly those concerning the Solidarity Crisis there in 1983. Anyways, here's the offending passage, with my inline comment revealed visible:
this is a highly POV and discriminatory statement, as "English Canada" doesn't mean the political establishment or media establishment, it means ALL Anglophone Canadians (or rather it means all non-Quebec francophones; not sure how to reword it and shouldn't be deleted but very, very "attack" and hostile towards anglophones in general. Yeah I know we all sound alike, but we're not all the same; all the weirder because it was the SQ who launched the attack, and Claude Ryan who presided over the army's and RCMP's replacement of them; anglophone politicians were nowhere to be seen; and the media as observed in my comment in the previous section, those few busy telling the truth, were forcibly muzzled. Blame WHAT on "English Canada"? I'm getting tired of the hate-mongering that goes along with soapboxing, that's for sure.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Oka lasagna stare down.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article, File:Oka barricade.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
While the article mentions that the protesters negotiated an agreement with the military, there's no indication of what that agreement was. What was the final status of the land, and what is the legacy of this event? siafu ( talk) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is of marginal use to Wikipedia users, who tend to rely on the Wikipedia for doing academic articles, speeches etc.
It is filled with false statements (I corrected the preposterous notion that the War Measures Act, or its successor was invoked by the Federal government. In fact the National Defence Act, "aid of the civil power" was invoked by the provincial government which then requisitioned the military.) Likewise no mention is made of the arsenal of assault rifles and machine guns brought in from the US, which meant they out-gunned the police. No mention is made of the controversial nature of the support which came from elswhere in North America, nor of the polemic in the Montreal Mohawk communities about being "highjacked" by these outsiders, nor of the criminal connections of many of these outsiders. The article fails to mention that when the occupants broke out of the Oka de-intox centre, in contravention of their agreement with the authorities, only six of them returned to the reservation.(Radio-Canada report for the day in question)
This article has become a race-based, unbalanced polemic or diatribe against government, much like some of the "globalisation" articles. It is useless for serious reference. This characterisitc applies to the whole article and must be more clearly highlighted. It is destructive of the tremendous usefulness and credibility of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.116.42 ( talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Marimanque ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The preceding position is not "neutral" (Nor should it be.Applause) It represents the position of the "Winner" and makes assumptions based on what is right or wrong from their perspective. Again the winners try to make their victory look glorious by deciding what is evidence and what is not. It is always about how convenient the information is for "my" position.
Lets break it down a) "War measures" act or not" The government called in the military. b) As a sovereign peoples the Mohawk could bring in what every arsenal they wanted to defend their territory from foreign assault c) "Define Controversial" support. Again a subjective position (No problem just be clear about it) c) Divisions in the community. Sure some supported the offensive some did not. Big deal. d) "Outsiders", criminal connections" Sounds Like Brian Mulroney wrote this article. Marimanque ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
~~ Absolutely true, but that is not an excuse for keeping incorrect or biased information. The goal should be excellence, even if it cannot be relied upon to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepl ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have some pretty big problems with the POV of this article. I have cut the statement about the Oka mayor saying "You know you can't talk to the indians" as I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever said that. Can someone provide a link? Also, the talk about the "millions of dollars" Oka stood to receive for development sounds suspect (evidence?). The narrative of the police raid on the barricade reads a lot like fictionalized account ("women and children fled in panic, and then the police opened fire in an effort to disperse the Mohawks manning the barricade") and in fact there is still a great deal of conflict around who opened rifle fire first. Indeed, evidence suggests that the natives responded to the tear gas shots, which they thought were gunshots, but I'll leave this ambiguity out. The account of the police calling out women and children and then firing on them doesn't at all jibe with the news reports, which show that there were women and children inside the barricade, unbeknownst to the police, who had attacked in a rapid raid without communicating first. Also, Corporal Lemay was shot in the face, not between the segments of his bulletproof vest. The entire discussion of racial abuse at the barricades also sounds suspect and I can't find anything to support the anecdotes included (except some rock-throwing, but nothing to suggest it was racist rather than natural anger), so I have cut much of it as well. The mention of a Francophone KKK is nothing short of absurd - I'm afraid the Bethune Institute (cited below) just isn't a very reliable source. It's more of an odd collaboration between some far right and far left radicals. I've added some more details about the military units involved. The line stating that "sympathy for Quebec nationalism plunged and never recovered" is simply untrue - the Quebec referendum of five years later came within a few thousand votes of supporting separation from Canada, and the provincial government of the day was federalist. If anything, provincial Liberal mishandling of the Oka file led to the rise to power of the separatist PQ. Comments? Geoff NoNick 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The recent edits have added a lot of info, but some of it is inflammatory and POV. In particular I am referring to the allegations of racism. I believe that racism played a major factor in this event, but talk of a "francophone KKK chapter" need reliable references if it's going to stay in. I've never heard of Klan activity in Quebec, and it seems very unlikely given the predominance of Catholicism in the province. The anecdotes about white Quebecois attacking natives also need references if they're to be kept. I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt, but I will remove the questionable sections if they're not toned down or reliable references provided. Pburka 14:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I was surprisd too. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, we must never forget that the Native people were fighting for their freedom, whereas the colonial Canadian government was fighting to make money and oppress indigenous people's rights. The Canadian government cannot try to sidestep the truth: that they sent the military to arrest people over a golf club. Canadian soldiers were NOT heroes, they were evil imperial stormtroopers sent to crush a group of people fighting for their freedom.
~~ And sadly, the article is completely dominated by people who share your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepl ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph I added specificity to the "someone died" sentence because it didn't even mention whether it was a Mohawk, CF, or SQ. According to the coroner's report, coroner Guy Gilbert in the 500 page report ruled that an AK-47 assault rifle fired the round that killed Cpl Lemay. Since Canada does not use AK-47s whereas the Mohawks were, it was ruled a homicide by a "Mohawk Warrior". As there were many Mohawks with that type of weapon, no individual can be held accountable.
I would like to replace the Windtalker reference to the inquest report to the ACTUAL report, but it's as though it's been scrubbed from the web. If you search for it you will find many CBC search results with it plainly in the Goolge or Bing search summary, but scrubbed from the archived article. That's a little bothersome, but I can't explain it.
I'm just trying to make this thing accurate; I'm an American and have no personal agenda on this article, but given what happened to the soldier at Parliament this year could not abide by a simple "someone died but let's not bother mentioning who" for this one. Given the coroner's report was 500 pages, lasted 18 months, and called 125 witnesses I'm surprised it's so hard to locate!
Davepl ( talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I will take the time and replace the youtube sources later today. Yale D. Belanger; P. Whitney Lackenbauer (2015). Blockades Or Breakthroughs?: Aboriginal Peoples Confront the Canadian State. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-7735-4390-4. -- Moxy ( talk) 15:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Oka Crisis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oka Crisis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This is nearly a B-class article but citation style is out-of-date (lacks in-line citations) and there are some disputed sections. Should be cleaned up and considered soon for a good-class nom. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Winegard, Timothy C. (2006) The Court of Last Resort: The 1990 Oka Crisis and the Canadian Forces is available online from Collections Canada. I'm not deeply knowledgeable about this stuff, but it looks to me like a very good source. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oka Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The neutrality of the recent changes seem to present a POV of the dominant culture. More discussion sought on the neutrality of these changes. Some citations were removed without explanation. Netherzone ( talk) 01:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Oka Crisis/Archive 1 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." |
Opinion: Removal of tags is, just like everything else here at Wikipedia, to be determined by consensus. When an edit is challenged, it is the obligation of the editor wishing to make the edit to obtain consensus for the edit. The removal here by Geoff NoNick having been challenged, the tag should remain in place until consensus is determined to remove it. Having said that, it is not obvious to me on quick examination in what way the article is not neutral. That's not to say that it is or is not, in fact, neutral, but only that the argument that it is not is not obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter of the article. If someone should take the time to seek a broader consensus discussion about whether or not the article is neutral, such as one at the neutral point of view noticeboard or via a request for comments, then those contending that it is not neutral are going to have to explain in some detail why they feel that way or concede that the article is neutral and the tag can be removed, since consensus is based upon the weight of argument, not on counting votes. In that light, it would be far better if Netherzone were to explain here on the talk page, in detail, how and why he feels the article to not be neutral so that those issues can be addressed through discussion here as intended by the wiki system. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Geoff NoNick and TransporterMan - First, some clarification regarding communication patterns/styles: I'm not "refusing" anything, nor am I interested in "winning" or "revert warring", and I am perplexed to hear those descriptors. We have a common goal here: to improve the article and establish NPOV. It would be productive to please take an impartial tone that assumes good faith in your communications with me. Understand that if you don't hear back from me immediately, it is not a refusal, rather it is an indication of a busy life. I like to think before I speak. Here are some thoughts on the article re: POV:
NPOV guideline: Avoid stating opinions as facts. With so much unsourced material in the article, it is difficult for the reader (who may be unfamiliar with the incident) to distinguish what is fact from what is opinion. The article needs more inline citations; entire paragraphs are unsourced.
NPOV guideline: Avoid cultural assumptions, use non-judgmental language. For example, if statements such as this: “but throughout the 1990s Kanesatake remained the focus of attention for alleged lawlessness, drug crimes (mostly involving cannabis), and connections to organized crime.” are to be included in the article, it should either be qualified or sourced. The History section also contains assumptions, that connote colonizer's perspective (hence my comment about "dominant culture."
NPOV guideline: Avoid ambiguous terms, language or references that need clarification. “in the pines” – ambiguous spatial area/concept; “some Mohawks” – who, how many, when etc.; “this stand-down” – vernacular?; “some 30 armed warriors” – not precise, statistics should be researched; “some 2,500 regular…” – not precise, statistics should be researched; “occasionally expressed publicly” ambiguous statement within subjective sentence.
NPOV guideline: Reliable sources that show good research. This is the area of the article that was the original “red flag” for me, and why it is premature to remove the tag. Re: the Historical background section – It is poorly sourced. It needs balance of historians from First Nations as well as colonizing culture’s sources. Re: the Crisis section – It is poorly sourced.
Current sources needing update: The Tekastiaks source is a dead link and needs to be updated. The link for the Kanesatake people’s website is a dead link and needs to be updated. The Hamilton Spectator link is dead and needs to be updated. The CBC radio link needs to be updated. It is good policy to update dead links rather than removing them, the WayBack Machine can help with this.
Re: Quaility of sources. No academic literature is sourced in the body of the article, however, many books and peer-reviewed journal articles exist. WP states: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks; Books published by respected publishing houses; Magazines; Journals. These are pretty much absent in the article; a few (older ones) are listed in the citations section. Some serious revisions could be made in this regard. Mainstream newspapers – ok here: present are the NYTimes & Montreal Gazette & Globe and Mail.
Suggestion: Hundreds of more current books and journal articles are available on GoogleBooks GoogleScholar, HighBeam and JSTOR. Including these would vastly improve the article, and its POV. Netherzone ( talk) 18:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've worked on the History section, adding citations and non-sweeping edits to achieve more balance. Also added citations. More work is necessary. I've also begun to refine parts of the Crisis section using sources from both sides of the incident. Netherzone ( talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction, it says there were two fatalities. In the box, there are more details: "1 SQ Groupe d'Intervention operative killed" and "1 Mohawk elder killed". The second fatality is never again mentioned or explained in the article. In the reference (5) given in the box, I found this paragraph:
Earlier during the crisis, neighbouring communities lashed out at the people of Kahnawake for their decision to blockade the Mercier Bridge. On Aug. 28, 1990, a mob gathered at the entrance of the reserve and pelted Mohawks coming out with stones. Joe Armstrong, a 71-year-old man, was hit in the chest and later died of a heart attack.
This incident is also mentioned in ref (1):
In the afternoon of August 28, some residents of Kahnawake also begin to evacuate in a convoy of some 70 vehicles, mostly women, children, & elders. (...) By the time the convoy is underway, a mob of over 500 white people has gathered. They begin throwing rocks at the Mohawk vehicles, smashing windows and injuring persons inside. One elder, Joe Armstrong (71 years old) is hit in the chest with a large boulder. He would die one week later of a heart attack. Although there were approx. 30-40 police on hand, they made no effort to stop the rock throwing.
In my opinion this incident should be mentioned briefly in the article, because I imagine other readers might just be confused as I was by the mention of two fatalities without any further explanation. 2003:E3:5F27:E04:1DBB:E516:FAC6:E5C0 ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If anyone saw the movie 300, this was kind of a similar situation, in which Natives=Spartans (as people defending their lands from imperialistic invaders) and Canadians=Persians (as colonial conquerors). That's a pretty good analogy for Native/European colonist (USA and Canada) relations.
Julian Watson, I think you'll have trouble finding any respectable news sources referring to the Kanienkehaka warriors at Oka as "terrorists." - TheMightyQuill 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TheMightyQuill in that you'll have trouble news sources referring to the Kanienkehaka at Oka as "terrorists", but they do match the definition of terrorists. Being that the mohawks in this situation were non-state actor who used violence and the threat of violence to further a socio-political agenda. Wped87 ( talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
They don't usually call them warriors either. A warrior isn't some university student in a funny camoflauge outfit and a mask who yells racial slurs at real soldiers and blockades a road. Julian Watson
To continue this arguement I must Add That Your ignorance is kind of funny we ARE warriors of our own You Cant Compare us To real soldiers Because We ARE real soldiers We Fight for our own rights for this land which Everyone stole From us Now we face poverty because many of our communitys are just so poor many Not many of us are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.78.202 ( talk) 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Before I start, Julian, thanks for discussing this on the talk page. I should apologize for some of my more hostile comments earlier, when I thought you were simply vandalizing. I see you are definitely making edits in good faith, and I appreciate that.
Now, here's my rationale: Firstly, the role of warrior is an important part of Mohawk culture. I understand that you may feel indigenous culture is a remnant of "the stone age" (as you put it on another article's talk page) but people like Brad Laruque disagree with you. They called themselves warriors, and that counts for something. Reputable media referred to them as warriors, which is even more important, for wikipedia.
Second, while I appreciate wikipedia's definition of warrior, there are clearly multiple definitions...
Furthermore, they were physically defending what they considered their territory by means of force. You might not agree that the Oka crisis was a war by the wikipedia definition, but historically there were few indigenous large-scale prolonged conflicts, yet there have always been mohawk warriors. The American Heritage dictionary also defines warrior as "1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle" which certainly fits in this case.
Essentially, you disagree with their political stance and certainly don't seem to value their culture, and therefor, you're attempting to denigrate their status as warriors. That is POV, not the widely-used term "warrior." - TheMightyQuill 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TheMightyQuill...I am far from an expert on Mohawk culture but I do understand a bit about Aboriginal culture having spent about a third of my life living on a reserve in southern Alberta. I object to the use of the term "warrior" because I think it plays into the whole "noble-savage" stereotype that is so often seen in Canadian(and American I suppose) media. The man in the picture was a economics student who as far as I can tell had never participated in a war, never trained to be in a war, was not a member of any army and belonged to a people who hadn't participated in anything that could be considered an armed conflict for over a century. If he were white nobody would be calling him a "warrior".
I would like to propose a compromise, I will stop calling him a terrorist if you will stop calling him a warrior and we can just call him a student. I think we can both agree that he was a student and that it is certainly not a derogatory term. I find "warrior" to be a demeaning and mildly racist(though unintentionaly) and I would prefer not spend the next 6 months replacing the term. Julian Watson 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
He was not "defending his land" from anyone. He was illeagaly blockading a road in a effort to extort land that courts had already found did not belong to him. He used terror and the threat of violence in an effort to force his ethnocentric views on others. The majority of aboriginal people I know including my mother and grandparents considered the people involved in the Oka crisis to be extremists and thugs and certainly not representation of mainstream aboriginal views. The "warrior societies" on reserves serve the same function as the Triads in Chinese Canadian communities or the Hells Angels in European Canadian communities. They do not exist to "defend" the community or make war, they are organized criminal gangs that engage in drug running and extortion on reserves. The media in Canada refer to these criminals as "warriors" because the Canadian media is biggoted and treats aboriginal people as if we were still living in 1750 instead of 2007. Julian Watson 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We are free citizens of the Haudensaunee/Iroquois Confederacy first and foremost and we will never be anything less. We are ruled by the Great Law of Peace-the oldest constitution and practicing democracy in the world. We were never beaten in war, we made treaties for peace to live in harmony side by side. Treaties are international law and very much binding agreements i.e. the rule of law. We did not break these laws. We did not encroach on land that was designated british/U.S./canada through treaty. We did not coerce,bribe or otherwise change these treaties through nefarious means. We did not have assimilation policies for the"eventual extinction or integration" of your people. We do not have your foreign ideas of selfishness nor did we force our ways and culture on you. We did not destroy the pre-columbian forest that stretched north to south on the eastern half of the north american continent nor contless millions more plant life. We did not slaughter millions upon millions of animal life. We did not commit genocide to satisfy a need for greed. We work to have a good mind. We are patient. We are your brothers and sisters.
So I can't find any articles saying that it was a NATO round that hit the police officer, but rather a 7.62x39 round that could have only come from the Mohawk. However, given that there were multiple firearms being used by the Mohawk, and that the majority of firearms used were destroyed at the barricade before the Mohawk retreated, the polic couldn't identify who fired the fatal shot. So the rants below don't hold any factual significance or accuracy. Blursed Boi ( talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this Mindmatrix], I haven't looked at this article for a long time even before I left in 2011....this article has always been subjecty to propaganda and POV problems. The reality is that the bullet that killed Cpl LeMay was an SQ bullet, as proven by autopsy, so in that case it was his own colleagues who murdered him, accidetnally or otherwise. All CAnadian political and policing articles seem to be under regular attack by those seeking to rewrite history and control opinion; not surprising given who's in charge and who trained him. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Calling it "the reality" just complicates your POV. THe coroner's inquest says an AK-47 that uses a foreign round (7.62mm I suppose), which neither NATO nor police use in Canada, fired the fatal shot. The inquest report gets specific enough that they know the bullet was likely fired from a prone position due to the angle it entered his armpit, missing the vest (which would not stop a rifle round anyway). The report seems quote NPOV as it considered both sides to be true governments, holds both sides accountable, and so on.
It was, in fact, ruled homicide but could not be attributed to any one person. Calling it "Murder" might be technically accurate but seems inflammatory. "Homicide by an unknown Mohawk" is more precise but a pretty clunky sentence fragment.
If someone has authoritative information to the contrary, I'd love to see it and learn from it. Just please don't revert this edit merely because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't match someone's narrative - I just want the actual facts reflected. Davepl ( talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So apparently we need to have a group discussion on whether the edits I proposed (saved then had reverted by mods). It would be great if some people read through it to see if it is up to the guide lines for neutrality and good faith. I cited all of the information added from archives and encyclopaedias that were already being sourced and removed claims that were made that cited from opinion blogs and school presentations (don't think either of those are particularly credible) as well as statements that were not cited and did not reflect any of the sourced articles. Also, I did some grammar edits to make things flow better (at least for me). I spent couple hours screening the entire document, which is why the cumulative edits appears so large, so if some people have time to review, edit the edits and push it to main, that'd be great. FYI, my intention was to make the edits as neutral as possible, but after reading the talk page as well as the main article, I saw/see a considerable amount of bias and bad faith claims that were siding with the Mohawk which slowly made me more and more irritated while writing, so as a disclaimer the language used may not be particularly neutral, but the facts regarding the locations, participants, numbers, and timeline will be. Cheers Wped87 ( talk) 21:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't; it was a separate series of events, earlier in the winter, maybe Jan-Feb, Mohawk vs. Mohawk. Am I the only one who remembers the past? i.e. don't have to rely on the major media to repeat/reshape it for me? I don't have time to write an article/ search for cites; if someone could pls take an interest in the topic, it should be part of the background here, but it really is also a separate article, or should be Skookum1 ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I'm popping into this article as I seek to improve the coverage of high-profile land disputes in Canada (such as the
2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests and the
Grand River land dispute), and I'm puzzled as to why Oka uses {{
Infobox military conflict}}
rather than {{
Infobox civil conflict}}
. The military was only called on in the last few weeks of the conflict, and it seems to me that Oka has much more in common with the two articles I've linked above (and
Ipperwash Crisis, which incidentally has no infobox) than with, for instance, the
Falklands War or
The Blitz, or even
The Troubles (to use a somewhat contemporaneous example). I think the infobox should be changed to be {{
Infobox civil conflict}}
.
James Hyett (
talk) 02:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C, what information in the article is not neutral, and what do you propose to do to fix it? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
On one hand, as of 20230725 the article reads as pretty pro-Mohawk, which I imagine is to be considered the neutral POV from a 21st century perspective. Even calling it the Kanesatake Resistance would not have been neutral 20 years ago, no one outside the movement had ever heard that term. It would be like calling what happened in Ukraine in the 1940s the Holodomor in the 1980s, to anyone outside Ukrainian circles. So that's a definite move in the direction of accepting Mohawk claims and accounts. On the other hand, I am actually impressed by the neutrality toward overall Mohawk claims that is implied by actually noticing that the Mohawk peoples conquered, colonized and displaced the previous inhabitants from the area in the 17th century. That's actually praiseworthy. The Beaver Wars are often forgotten as is the fact that aboriginal peoples actually warred with, conquered, killed, and enslaved or displaced one another, with their land claims moving around accordingly. Kudos. No change suggested. Random noter ( talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a concerted effort to erase any mention of Joe Armstrong's death by heart attack a week after he was hit in the chest with a rock, one of thousands that "locals" pelted a motorcade of Kanien:keha'ka fleeing for their lives with, as well as the near-fatal bayonetting of a 14 year old Waneek Horn-Miller by a Canadian Forces soldier as she was carrying her sister Kaniehtiio Horn on her back. While the former instance could be debated in terms of cause and effect, it's not debatable that it happened, and is an integral part of the narrative from the Kanien:keha'ka perspective. As for the latter, it unambiguously happened -- there is no debate. Both incidents have been widely covered in media, both contemporary and recent. What possible justification is there to keep these out of both the body of the article as well as, in Armstrong's case, the infobox death totals? It's almost like someone -- or, several someones -- insist that so-called Canada maintain the sympathy advantage in perpetuity... 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C ( talk) 02:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article is already great as is, but I have a few suggestions:
More images (easy fair use argumentation IMHO) would greatly enhance the article. Also, several books are mentionned by the end of the article, but there is no bibliographic links fro them, which would be a nice addition. In general, footnotes would also enhance the article.
The final effects on the disputed land are not even mentionned in the article! Bad me! I didn't notice the part about the extension being cancelled.
Finally, the picture currently illustrating the article indicates other acts of support were held beyond Quebec, this should be mentionned in the article, likely in a different section "Support outside Quebec" or something alike. In the same vein, more details about who supported/opposed the Mohawks would enhance the article. Circeus 14:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'll have to figure out how to rephrase that, as there were many incidents of semi-organized native vs. government violence outside of Central Canada which never made the national media radar; especially here in BC I'm thinking of the shooting war in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s between DFO and the local natives (various chiefs were arrested) and more recently on the Lower Fraser and also as I recall in the Skeena. What made Oka different was that it was happening on Montreal's doorstep, i.e. it was going on in Central Canada, and also that CBC Newsworld had instituted an innovative round-the-clock live coverage policy for unfolding events, which gave Oka prime-time status (and top ratings, too); the silencing and muzzling of CBC Newsworld that arose from the Oka Crisis' unofficial (? - no one's ever shown me the paperwork!) imposition of military censorship on the eve of the final ultimatum; Newsworld's original open-air flavour has forever been replaced by talking heads carefully managing information for us, instead of actually just SHOWING us the news, as it had originally done. Now, like all media worth their lying salt, they manage the news for us.... Skookum1 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to someone who'd changed a mention I put into the Meech Lake Accord article:
We need to add more info about what happened after the CF intervened. There was that famous photo of the soldier staring down an armed protestor. Can we include the photo? (probably not). The photo really demonstrated the professionalism of the troops, which deserves some mention. — Pburka 1 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
And as for professionalism, I'm not sure I can deal with that claim (if it's on the main page it's POV) given that the military supported the undeclared state of emergency which stripped Canadians and others of their civil rights, interned people without charges, and also brought down their authority on CBC Newsworld to end the Mohawk's access to the public via live free-speech broadcasting. They may have been "professional" in terms of following orders, not shootin' injuns and so forth; but there's no way the military should be considered "professional" here, and its use for the troops is like saying only "they did their job" (taking orders from superiors, no matter how dubious in political origin....). Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there any mention in the main article concerning the military's blackout and takeover of CBC at the height of the crisis? If it's not mentioned, then not mentioning it is POV. Skookum1 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your views clearly do have a place in the article, but the more popular POV in the Oka Crisis is that the CF acted with great professionalism; ergo, it must be includeed in the article. I think you should take a step back for a moment and look at it this way: right or wrong - a sub-group of Canadian society in Oka chose to defy the legitimate civil authorities and pursue their agenda through force of arms rather than legal means. The situation was so out of control that the military was called in as an aid to civil power; a job that they are both loathe to do and that politicians are loathe to resort to. I'm not saying everything that happened is right, but it has to be noted that the average soldier involved; many of them only reservists with minimal training; acted with extraordinary professionalism in an extremely harrowing situation.
Easter rising 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There's some good detailed info at the band council's web site. Seems to be largely NPOV. — Pburka 1 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
What is the source for the "playful" water balloon fight and the references to the Mohawks breaking their guns, throwing them into septic tanks, and burning tobacco before they walked home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.170.164 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am adding to this discussion mostly because of the ignorance shown by i can only presume are supporters of the genocide occuring against me and my people. Is this article POV? I am not concerned with whether or not some soldier was on crack when he was there, the real question is Why was he there in the first place! I have noticed that most of the "sources" refered to here by these same people are amibigous at best, plain old lies at most, they presume that since it was written/spoken by the same people who created this situation (non-Natives) that it must be true. Why dont they ask one of us how things really are, to have a better understanding of why situations like this happen, (a good start is Alanis Obomaswin's documentary 270yrs of Resistance) When you realize that it is your government (and by extension yourself) that is responsible for these situations occuring then perhaps we can have a REAL discussion about this. I appreciate Skookums comments on this issue although i do find the reference to identifying herself as an Canadian a bit disappointing, but that is a matter for another time. RedMan11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedMan11 ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, gotta say my piece. I'd reversed this to the way it should be, i.e. how we all heard it described, and how they describe themselves. Who keeps on politically-correcting "Mohawk warrior" into "Mohawk person", and what's your rationale? Mohawk Warrior is fully capitalized, also. Could it be that the lack of capitalization led someone to believe that "warrior" was racist/discriminatory? Nope, it's not, and Mohawk Warriors call themselves that proudly, AFAIK. Skookum1 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
PS when you make a sensitive edit like that, please have a username and sign in before doing so. IP address edits don't help much if there's a disagreement or a need for consultation. Skookum1 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ive added a NPOV tag to the history section of the article, it requires sources from the other side of the question DRCarroll 11:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) -- RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The impression I got from the Iroquois website was that the "Warriors" are a distinct faction, within the tribe but outside the League. They don't recognize the authority of the sachems, and are the ones responsible for the smuggling, gambling, and other illegal activities (kinda like an Iroquois mafia). -- WikiMarshall 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that you have gotten the wrong impression. The Warriors (of any Native Nation) authority comes from the people of that Nation, the sachems (or in my language Giimaa) are only spokepeople, the situation that you describe as for recongnizing the"authority" of these SPOKEPEOPLE, one must look at the long-term history of our Nations, The current political situation on most of the Territories is one of occupation & control by Foreign powers (canada, us etc;) through the band council/tribal council system. As these Foreign systems are NOT indigenous to our people as well as being illegal, they have no authority to implement policy for ANY matter concerning us. As for the mistaken accounts of Indian Mafia I will say this most of the revenue producing activities authorized by the people dont involve Soprano-type deals of ANY kind. This is just misrepresentation of us and insulting to the characters of the people involved. RedMan11 September 25 2006
Redman11, whoever you are (since that's not a Wikisig), whatever your Giimaa are and whatever language that's from, you're making BIG assumptions that all native peoples are the same, and that automatically any outside description of them is "defamatory". The Mohawk Warrior Society is totally unique, though it has copycats among the Miqmaq and certain Western Canadian groups; it is both a political organization and, because it invokes the ancient right to trade cross-border, is heavily and intrinsically involved in smuggling both US-Canada and within Canada (becaus of differential liquor and tobacco taes). They're also typically heavily-armed and many are e-mercss, when not ex-Marines or e-CanForces, and are a known factor in the cross-border weapons trade. Whatever; point is that if the Mohawk Warrior Society DOES have a history of "criminal" involvement, as well as a big role in the violent Mohawk Civil War of the spring of 1990 (just before the Oka Crisis); and close links to the various Quebec bike gangs. Sopranos no, bike gang yes (and the mafia in Montreal are Irish anyway). "Misrepresentation and insulting to the characters of the people involved" you may claim; but if you do bad things, bad things get said about you. Point blank. Wrapping yourself in red skin (y'know, like the flag?) and invoking Mother Eareth doesn't cut it when the truth is involved. Skookum1 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments short sighted and almost assimilationist in character. If you truly did understand anything about our people, you would notice that although our motions(means of action) are not always the same, the basic intent is. I find your comments about copycats from other NATIONS (yes thats right were not canadians or americans) insulting and damaging to those of us who know the history and culture/language of our NATIONS. As for your comment on the Mohawk Civil War, perhaps you should talk to the people and aquaint yourself with the facts before making general judgements, the fact is that the Band/Tribal governments (supported by canada & the us) were attempting to impose their "authority" onto the Traditional people by stripping away what little self-suffienct economic development they had established at that time. As for your other comments on connections with biker gangs and "criminal activities",the so called criminal activities are nothing more then Native Nations asserting their right to be free,The true Traditionalist people would not have anything to do with biker gangs or others like them (and Yes this includes the Warrior Societies) The people who you refer to are the ones who started the Civil Conflict over economics the same ones the canadian & american governments support to maintain their dominance over us. Have you ever talked to them? Have you realized what they and others like them are trying to do for my people? Probably not which is sad :( Since you are not a citizen of a Native Nation I find your comments on subjects of which you know little or nothing about harmful and disrespectful of the struggles which me and my people face on a daily basis, when you have spoken with us and understand why things happen THEN you can speak of it, until then please keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I do not try to be something im not (canadian and/or american) I am Anishinaabek. -- RedMan11 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and so non-Germans should not write on German history, non-Irish on Irish history, and (ahem) non-white people on white history. Look, all I've tried to do is dispute the change someone from ANOTHER NATIVE NATION made (or a p.c.-conscious white-guilt type) from "Mohawk Warrior" to "Mohawk person", because THEY thought that "Warrior" was a racist and prejudicial term. And I can't speak for the Miqmaq Warriors (where I think there's a bit longer tradition) but I do know that certain groups in BC DID imitate the Mohawk Warriors (and don't tell me that's racist, assimilationist crap because YOU DON'T COME FROM WHERE I COME FROM). As for the "Civil Conflict" as you call it, please note I have not attempted to write an article on it, only pointed out that it needs an article; I have no political opinions on it one way or the other and would, in fact, appreciate the Mohawk viewpoint/story which we DID NOT get from CTV etc (NewsWorld was then still un-censored and its live coverage was exactly that: live, and not explanatory or doing the talking-heads thing). Fine, if the whole thing went down because of collaborators with white domination, or however you want to style the Indian Act-derived "governments"; I understand all that. But NONE OF THIS was clear in the Oka Crisis article, and the Mohawk Civil War ("Civil Conflict") remains a blank spot in the story. Now, if you're capable of writing a NPOV history of these events, and you don't mind white people actually READING the story (since, apparently, in your mind, we're not capable of understanding and, besides, we're all the same anyway, right?), then write the article and make the changes. As for calling me an assimilationist, you have no idea how LAUGHABLY wrong you are on that; I fully support (and do support) the full independence of the haudenosaunee just as I do of First Nations in my own province; a devolutionist Canada is where I'm coming from. In the same knee-jerk way Quebecois consider all anglos to be just like Ontarians, you've assumed that because I'm white (I happen to be, but I might have been something else, by the way) I "think like all other white people", I'm an "assimilationist" and worse. Anything but; in fact I regard the devolution of local power to native governments as a first step in constitutional reform in CAnada, and I also think more local power to municipalities (taken from the provs and feds) happens to be the way to go, based on the native model. But I guess my white skin disqualifies me from having an opinion in your world, huh? Funny thing about you native radicals - you quite often can't distinguish between supportive and interested non-natives and those who think you don't matter shit and are a bunch of whiners; I'm in the former group, despite the childish abuse hurled at me over the years by resentful radicals/ideologues such as yourself. Learn to distinguish people by something else than their skin colour, OK? Save your animosity for.....hell, maybe you should read some of the Dalai Lama so you can deal with that animosity of yours, in fact, instead of expecting everyone else to deal with it. Skookum1 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I find your opinion here as hyprocrisy defined, you say you have no opinion or POV on the situation that developed as the results of your governments actions (past and present), yet you refer to the Warriors who were defending their territory and the people on it as "criminals" has already shown to me and others that you dont understand what happened or is continuing to happen to us. I have no problem SHARING as defined in the INTERNATIONAL treaties our governments signed with you, what i do have a problem with is your insistance that we act, think and obey you in all activities. Which is the whole thrust of your agruement against me and others like me who wish to be free of that system. I can site numerous examples of where your government has betrayed, raped, stolen from and murdered (past & present) when it suits your wants. Based on your comments it would be HIGHLY unlikely that you would be able to read let alone understand a NPOV article about us, since this would be at odds with your conception of how and what we should be and what actually happens. The real cause of the "Indian problem" isnt us, its you. When you and others are READY to listen then we can understand each other and finally put these conflicts away and move forward, until then I hope that you take these words and reflect on your beliefs about us and open yourself. -- RedMan11 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your a taxpayer arent you? You vote in the canadian "democracy"? therefore it is your government acting on your behalf. You cannot take credit for one action and deny the other thats called hypocrisy. And what is your obsession with always mentioning that your white? You seem to focus on this a lot in your comments as if somehow mentioning that fact gains you authority over matters of which by your own admission you are not directly apart of. As for your statements that you know more then me, someone who lives it everyday, about oppression against my people not only insulting and arrogant, but another example of your mentality towards us thinking (perhaps subconsiously) that you are somehow superior to us even in matters which we live day to day, like i previously stated but which you seemed to have once again missed, Native Nationalists like myself have no problem sharing the resources and responsiblities of Turtle Island, where we differ is the concept of how. I believe as others do that we are NATIONS subject to our OWN laws and customs, you appear to believe that you have the right to decide for me and others what we can do, how we live, what are rights are. This is called colonialism in other areas of the world, if you are truly sincere in your claim that you support this, start by examining your own attitudes and prejuidices and petition YOUR government to start the process of DeColonization. I know that you will know doubt respond to this and although i would sincerely wish to have a decent and open-minded conversation about this subject, it would be sadly (based on previous posts) be more of the tirade directed towards me for challenging your view of us. -- RedMan11 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're a reductionist as well as a hate-monger, it seems; denouncing all people who are in the Canadian nation-state for being guilty simply for being in that country by dint of being born in it and co-opted by a once-in-a-while plurality FTPT voting system that is not democracy, only the sham of one; and no, I'm not responsible for the actions of my government, no more than they are for my actions. Most of all the Mulroney government, fer chrissake, or more to the point that of the Mayor of Oka or the Government of Quebec. Being from BC, I have nothing to do with the latter two, and only guilt-by-association-of-being-white-and-having-voted (Green, btw). So what's your deal? You sound like the kind of radical who wants the 300 million non-aboriginals on the continent to go back to where they came from; that's also very realistic of you, and I admire your determination. And where you got the idea that I - I re, man, I - "have the right to decide for 'you' and others what you [we] can do, how we live" etc. I have no FUCKING IDEA where you got that from in my previous post, in which I clearly said the audenosauee had every right to exist as a microstate, including deciding for itself how it's run and how it'll approach things; that I ever said any different is something in your twisted white-hating fantasies. Skookum1 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
?? Violent conflicts between the DFO and First Nations in BC were commonplace in the '70s and '80s, including a "shooting war" in the Fraser Canyon in the 1970s. I'm also pretty sure that there were other aboriginal-officialdom conflicts, some of which could be styled "violent", long before Oka. What distinguished Oka is that it was on the doorstep of one of the country's largest cities and was also front-and-centre in then-live coverage on NewsWorld. So "first of a number of violent conflicts" is definitely NOT the right phrasing here. Skookum1 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In Kahnawake, we had a number of violent conflicts during the 1970's as well.-- Arcticmohawk 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
the warrior's society erradicated all the drug dealers out of kahnawake and if you were there you would know what went on and how the media depicted the warriors as villians and thugs like mafia because that is all white people know, native people have been and continuing to be descriminated against even in canada the O, so equal country who promotes peace in among countries in the rest of the world. HIPOCRITES!!!!
Isn't the canonical form of the chant "Le Québec aux Québécois", rather than "Québec pour les Québécois"? Indefatigable 20:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Oui. Skookum1 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Tried to get back to last legitimate version following multiple quite silly vandalism attempts. Someone more familiar with the article might just check that I reverted to the correct place. Abbeyvet 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just checkin' around, think this has been raised (by me) before; the Mohawk Civil War refers to at intfra-Mohawk conflict at Akwesasne-St. Regis a few months prior to the outbreak of the Oka Crisis; I note that the Oka Crisis itself was labelled the "Mohawk Civil War" by the Village Voice, but that's not its proper usage. There's a number of articles/columns about "Mohawk Civil War" if you google that phrase so, unless this article includes a section on the unrest within the Mohawk Nation in the months before Oka, the topic should be broken off and given its own section. One reason I meant to do so is that it also would, or should, qualify under List of United States military history events because it involved the deployment of US troops (who were from the adjacent Messina base and deployed in full-scale occupation of the American side of the Akwesasne Reserve in response to the shooting war on the Canadian side...the US deployment I remember from CBC Newsworld's coverage, I haven't seen it in print since but it must be somewhere i.e. citable). Skookum1 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is "licences" written in quotes? Kahnawake is a respected licensor, affiliated with Gaming Associates.
I did some tinkering with the Historical background section because there were some lexical errors in it and also to see if we could drop the POV tag. I'm not sure what facts are in dispute, so I've tagged a couple of uncited statements (does anyone know the source for the PERC link?) and generally tried to outline the Mohawk claims without endorsing them in the article until we can properly source them. Without starting a pissing match, is there anything more we can do to make the section unPOV? If there's no action in the next couple of days I'll take the label off. Geoff NoNick ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please Assume Good Faith just a little? I see no reason to suggest omissions are deliberate. Yes, the article could use some work. Please, Be Bold and add any content you deem necessary. I haven't heard of any of the things you mentioned, so I can't very well have deliberately omitted them. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's unfortunate, and even shameful that there isn't more information on the Oka Crisis online, but I'm not sure it's a conspiracy. Firstly, there are lots of people on both sides of this issue whom I expect feel stronger about it than you or I do, yet they haven't put information online either. Corporate media largely ignore these issues (unless they have no choice) not because they want to keep it quiet, but because they don't care, and they think most Canadians feel similarly. Sadly, they're probably right. I remember telling someone from Ontario a couple years ago about Caledonia, and she said "Oh yeah, the indians do that every year or so..." Indigenous rights protests are largely treated as non-issues by Canadians... as just whiners and trouble-makers. Protests at Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation (Grassy Narrows) have been going on since at least 2003, and I've never once seen it on the news. Leaders from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation were arrested in March, and it made national news for one night. If a whole municipal council from a non-native community was arrested, it would get press until the matter was resolved. Still, it's systemic bias... same as wikipedia. The Elijah Harper is there, but it's weak, with one reference and no picture. Not a conspiracy or "information washing" just that there aren't enough people who care editing wikipedia. Just you, me, and a handful of others. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy cover-up or not (and I would tend towards the latter), the article itself can be NPOV in the face of the available information. The NPOV tag has a very specific meaning: that the article clearly exhibits a bias in one direction despite documented evidence in the other. What Skookum1 is talking about are things that he has heard happened, but that no credible media outlet has published (unless it has been published, in which case the way forward is clear). That can't really attribute a POV to the article, which is obliged to simply give a fair review of the existing documentation. I would propose that a compromise that might allow us to get rid of the NPOV tag while addressing Skookum1's concerns would be the addition of a "Conspiracy theories" section that would address the fact that there appears to be some belief that some Oka-related events were covered up, without actually entering them into the official record of events. Geoff NoNick ( talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to backpedal a little here and concede that corporate and (in the case of the CBC) national biases do affect media spin. Owners do affect content, particularly editorial. Whatever happened at the time, it's likely that in the case of Oka, both public disinterest after the fact, and conscious editing/censorship by the media have played a part in the lack of information available online now. The problem with claiming "media conspiracy" is that it allows people to make accusations without substantiation ("The media don't report on their own conspiracy!"). That's why the extreme-right and wackos like Gary McHale can make the same case. ("Look! There's no entry on McHale! Wikipedia conspiracy!") As far as wikipedia goes, claiming media blackout sounds like a cop-out. There might be media influence, but we don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship. If something was said, it's not THAT hard to find out. The Conrad Blacks of this country may dominate the media, but they don't control it all. I haven't seen anything online about local whites burning Mohawk effigies and chanting "sauvages! sauvages!" but I saw it in a film (I can't remember if it was Obomsawin's or Welsh's). I'm assuming, Skookum, when you say you "watched it happen" you weren't actually in Oka - you "watched it happen" on TV and in the press. If an anchor invoked the CBC Charter "to promote national unity and prevent regionalism" live on air as a reason to pay less attention to the Oka Crisis, that's fascinating, and should definitely be included. Do you remember at all what night it might have happened? Maybe we can track this down. To much complaining and not enough adding content is a waste of time. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, watching the video of the standoff, I never realised the soldier muttered "motherfucker" at the Native who was staring at him, cursing...I always imagined that scene completely quiet and surreal Sherurcij 02:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
"years after"? I was a member of a non-native solidarity group (Le Regroupement de Solidarite avec les Autochtones)and we mentioned this in our newsletter late 1990 or early 1991. Just goes to show how effective (or not) we were reaching out to non-natives. (I keep signing my post and it doesn't do it: My handle is gatorinvancouver 24.84.210.36 ( talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted that the song North by Paul Mounsey used recorded excerpts from both the front line of this and from news reports covering this event at the start of the song?
It's a bit tad stupid to ask, but i'm listening to the song at the moment and thought it would be of some interest....maybe not. -- mickyfitz13 Talk 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Get real. That is VERY POV. I don't care if the media used it occasionally; they like to sensationalize. The idea that a college kid can throw on a mask and become a warrior is ridiculous. That applies no matter what nationality or race he/she/it is and no matter how worthy the cause they support. I don't edit much lately, and just removed the silliness a while back thinking it blatantly obvious. Along comes a revert claiming the issue was resolved here, which it was not; it was simply asserted that it wasn't POV and replaced.
Perhaps I can become a warrior. I've got a bandanna somewhere. Does it require eyeholes? A2Kafir ( and...?) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A2kakir, as much as I value your opinion, the sources support including the term warrior. Because it's used by both sides, it's the most neutral term. Your opposition to the term without references opposing the use of warrior is Original Research and POV. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Mohawk warriors used this term to describe themselves. It is ridiculous to dispute this. Common A2Kakir Lets get on with more pressing issues. Again another example of how someone or some group will try to defame another based on trivialities and claim "show me the evidence". Please stop this its embarrassing.
Marimanque (
talk) 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
HI, I noticed a couple of citation regarding Ciaccia, I was wondering if any of those are verifiable. I am trying to remember who he was in Obomsawin's documentary. Anyway, the other comment I would like to make regarding some of the assumptions of non-native people living under Canadian rule, and our people are also guilty of this as well. One dicussion centred around smuggling across borders etc, the assumption is that the Haudenosaunee people fall under Canadian law...and we do NOT. Therefore any attempts we incur to assert our treaty rights is met with resistence and hostility, therefore the use of firearms becomes necessary not by our laws but because of Canadian law. It would seem a bit ridiculous if a Mexican police officer came into Canada assuming juristiction and began telling each of the "tax-paying Canadian" what rights they can and can not exercise, in fact I suspect if that be the case each of you would find yourself taking up arms against this man, should he have the power to enforce his law upon you within your own borders...the audicity!!! The main point I believe most of our people are making is it is mainly about perspective and perception. We as the Haudenosaunee, who are educated about our rich history from birth, and we carry that from us throughout our lives, we are born into the politics of our people and most Canadians do not come into contact with us until they reach post-secondary. Therefore, if you can get your head rapped around the idea that we are not Canadian or American, however we are allies or friends of both nations maybe just maybe your mind can open up to the idea that we want peace amongst our friends and that for the most part our people are willing to continue that relationship and it is actually Canada that is the protester and the terrorist, then maybe we can begin to make some honest and geniune steps towards a better tomorrow for all nations and individuals involved without weapons and without violence. Our people "buried the hatchet" prior to contact when the Peacemaker and Hiawatha came into our lives and gave us the Great Law, now thats the law we follow, that is our rule of law. 209.226.250.27 ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Dodayotahahkwane May 15, 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.250.27 ( talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
APPLAUSE. I couldn't have put it better my self. Thanks for this information. Marimanque ( talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
One major theme here is that there is a dispute to control information. There is no neutrality on this subject. For Wiki to assume neutrality as a valid option already compromises the issues at stake and that neutrality will correct how information is published, distributed challenged etc.
In this discussion, those who opposed the OKA standoff are attempting to control the validity of the arguments in this document by citing lack of referencing. This is attributed to A) A lack of insight into how a political and military Crisis occurs and the reality of un-recorded statements made by all parties and B) When a person or group can not refute a position with reason they resort to a Western system of learning which is to say "Show me the evidence". For Western peoples this automatically assumes that for something to be true it must have been recorded on paper, or TV/media. If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear? It is also the most convenient way to oppose, deny and confront those who supportted the OKA Warrior stance.
There should simply be two version of the article and allow for opinions to be heard. Wiki uses a Western system of learning (the "encyclopaedia" ) and validation which therefore assumes evidence must be in some book somewhere. It is discriminatory by the very basis that it believes oral cultures are inferior. The assumption that neutrality is possible is actually a subjective position and discriminates against the presentation of evidence in many cases here. there will always be two positions here. The Winner and the loser. Marimanque ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zipperfish, and as one who watched this unfold on NewsWorld at the time, as a fully-grown and politically-aware adult (I was 34 at the time), there's no way this could be presented if only "reliable sources" as currently defined by Wikipedia could fully and NPOVishly portray this event. The citation request on the one book is typical; a review in a zine or alternative magazine or blog would be dismissed by wiki-cite enforcers, yet no mainstream paper even reviewed that book (which I owned, and might even still, in storage somewhere). And Dhatfield, it's impossible for you to see "serious POV" in this article because unlike people of my vintage (though truly I don't know your age) you didn't watch this unfold 24x7 on Newsworld, nor did you watch the evening that Penny Priddy, until then a low-ranking weatherperson from Winnipeg, was catapaulted to national talking-head anchor delivering military-vetted press releases when the Canadian military seized control of the network. And that's a fact, I watched it happen. Damned if I know where on the internet it's even mentioned, or in which "reliable" source it's talked about. ditto the parallel events at Seton Portage, which wouldn't have gotten known about at all if not for a bad video recording of the dogs and choppers attacking the women and children hadn't been smuggled out of the valley (which was under lockdown); the Vancouver papers - "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia's definitions - suppressed the number of Mounties that were used for the attack, or the fact that ord Robinsers were given in French so no one could understand; it took teh Seattle papers to get the figure right (63, vs 31 stated by the Province, 43 by the Sun); There's lots missing from this article, including the internment of foreign observers and the arrest-without-charges/rights of a few hundred non-natives (including as I recall one Svend Robinson, though maybe tha'ts mentioned). The role of the women's council and Ellen Gabriel and also of Jenny Jack, a Tahltan women from BC who was an intermediary and also kept infringements of the no-go zone by either side in check, is also absent.... ecause it's uncitable because so-called "reliable sources" never reported on it; or if they did, destroyed their archives ofr those reports.....actually it may be that there is full footage of this still somewhere, probably in RCMP/CSIS headquarters, certianly not in any publicly-available archive at e.g. a university, unless someone though to tape the whole thing off-air, as the military seized all of Newsworld at the time, ergo all the tapes....history isn't written by the victors, but it's surely edited by them....as much as they can manage. yeah, it may be that this article can never be NPOV, like so many others in Wikipedia, and it's why I'm leaving, I see it more and more as a venue where vague rules that can be manipulated, tweaked and/or ignored and overridden over each other make it impossible to properly write about anything at all. Wikipedia winds up being a heavily-vetted and ultimately discriminate (as opposed to "indiscriminate") collection of information.....unless alternative media is recognized as a legitimate/reliable source for articles like this one, or APPO (where that redirects to I mean), Wikipedia is destined to become a tool of the media/information-management cabal, a bloated and unwieldy and untrustworthy arm of Big Brother.....even my saying this is being noted down somewhere, I have no doubt of it.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I added an inline comment which I'll replicate here re the way Philpot's book is presented; hate-mongering against ALL of English Canada, not just the media establishment; it's a Quebec confabulation that this was all "our fault" but even more that the media manipulation that went on after was targeted only at aboriginals and (allegedly) francophones; Charlottetown ended in a farce where the media sat there and said "how can we get control of our viewership's minds again??"; I wish I had transcripts, but those were done away with like so much else to prevent and/or are hard to find; certainly not online (Asper destroyed 99% of his acquisitions' archival holdings when he formed CanWest in '93, including reportage of this as well as the events in British Columbia at the same time, similarly those concerning the Solidarity Crisis there in 1983. Anyways, here's the offending passage, with my inline comment revealed visible:
this is a highly POV and discriminatory statement, as "English Canada" doesn't mean the political establishment or media establishment, it means ALL Anglophone Canadians (or rather it means all non-Quebec francophones; not sure how to reword it and shouldn't be deleted but very, very "attack" and hostile towards anglophones in general. Yeah I know we all sound alike, but we're not all the same; all the weirder because it was the SQ who launched the attack, and Claude Ryan who presided over the army's and RCMP's replacement of them; anglophone politicians were nowhere to be seen; and the media as observed in my comment in the previous section, those few busy telling the truth, were forcibly muzzled. Blame WHAT on "English Canada"? I'm getting tired of the hate-mongering that goes along with soapboxing, that's for sure.... Skookum1 ( talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Oka lasagna stare down.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article, File:Oka barricade.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
While the article mentions that the protesters negotiated an agreement with the military, there's no indication of what that agreement was. What was the final status of the land, and what is the legacy of this event? siafu ( talk) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is of marginal use to Wikipedia users, who tend to rely on the Wikipedia for doing academic articles, speeches etc.
It is filled with false statements (I corrected the preposterous notion that the War Measures Act, or its successor was invoked by the Federal government. In fact the National Defence Act, "aid of the civil power" was invoked by the provincial government which then requisitioned the military.) Likewise no mention is made of the arsenal of assault rifles and machine guns brought in from the US, which meant they out-gunned the police. No mention is made of the controversial nature of the support which came from elswhere in North America, nor of the polemic in the Montreal Mohawk communities about being "highjacked" by these outsiders, nor of the criminal connections of many of these outsiders. The article fails to mention that when the occupants broke out of the Oka de-intox centre, in contravention of their agreement with the authorities, only six of them returned to the reservation.(Radio-Canada report for the day in question)
This article has become a race-based, unbalanced polemic or diatribe against government, much like some of the "globalisation" articles. It is useless for serious reference. This characterisitc applies to the whole article and must be more clearly highlighted. It is destructive of the tremendous usefulness and credibility of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.116.42 ( talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Marimanque ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The preceding position is not "neutral" (Nor should it be.Applause) It represents the position of the "Winner" and makes assumptions based on what is right or wrong from their perspective. Again the winners try to make their victory look glorious by deciding what is evidence and what is not. It is always about how convenient the information is for "my" position.
Lets break it down a) "War measures" act or not" The government called in the military. b) As a sovereign peoples the Mohawk could bring in what every arsenal they wanted to defend their territory from foreign assault c) "Define Controversial" support. Again a subjective position (No problem just be clear about it) c) Divisions in the community. Sure some supported the offensive some did not. Big deal. d) "Outsiders", criminal connections" Sounds Like Brian Mulroney wrote this article. Marimanque ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
~~ Absolutely true, but that is not an excuse for keeping incorrect or biased information. The goal should be excellence, even if it cannot be relied upon to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepl ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have some pretty big problems with the POV of this article. I have cut the statement about the Oka mayor saying "You know you can't talk to the indians" as I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever said that. Can someone provide a link? Also, the talk about the "millions of dollars" Oka stood to receive for development sounds suspect (evidence?). The narrative of the police raid on the barricade reads a lot like fictionalized account ("women and children fled in panic, and then the police opened fire in an effort to disperse the Mohawks manning the barricade") and in fact there is still a great deal of conflict around who opened rifle fire first. Indeed, evidence suggests that the natives responded to the tear gas shots, which they thought were gunshots, but I'll leave this ambiguity out. The account of the police calling out women and children and then firing on them doesn't at all jibe with the news reports, which show that there were women and children inside the barricade, unbeknownst to the police, who had attacked in a rapid raid without communicating first. Also, Corporal Lemay was shot in the face, not between the segments of his bulletproof vest. The entire discussion of racial abuse at the barricades also sounds suspect and I can't find anything to support the anecdotes included (except some rock-throwing, but nothing to suggest it was racist rather than natural anger), so I have cut much of it as well. The mention of a Francophone KKK is nothing short of absurd - I'm afraid the Bethune Institute (cited below) just isn't a very reliable source. It's more of an odd collaboration between some far right and far left radicals. I've added some more details about the military units involved. The line stating that "sympathy for Quebec nationalism plunged and never recovered" is simply untrue - the Quebec referendum of five years later came within a few thousand votes of supporting separation from Canada, and the provincial government of the day was federalist. If anything, provincial Liberal mishandling of the Oka file led to the rise to power of the separatist PQ. Comments? Geoff NoNick 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The recent edits have added a lot of info, but some of it is inflammatory and POV. In particular I am referring to the allegations of racism. I believe that racism played a major factor in this event, but talk of a "francophone KKK chapter" need reliable references if it's going to stay in. I've never heard of Klan activity in Quebec, and it seems very unlikely given the predominance of Catholicism in the province. The anecdotes about white Quebecois attacking natives also need references if they're to be kept. I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt, but I will remove the questionable sections if they're not toned down or reliable references provided. Pburka 14:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I was surprisd too. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, we must never forget that the Native people were fighting for their freedom, whereas the colonial Canadian government was fighting to make money and oppress indigenous people's rights. The Canadian government cannot try to sidestep the truth: that they sent the military to arrest people over a golf club. Canadian soldiers were NOT heroes, they were evil imperial stormtroopers sent to crush a group of people fighting for their freedom.
~~ And sadly, the article is completely dominated by people who share your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepl ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph I added specificity to the "someone died" sentence because it didn't even mention whether it was a Mohawk, CF, or SQ. According to the coroner's report, coroner Guy Gilbert in the 500 page report ruled that an AK-47 assault rifle fired the round that killed Cpl Lemay. Since Canada does not use AK-47s whereas the Mohawks were, it was ruled a homicide by a "Mohawk Warrior". As there were many Mohawks with that type of weapon, no individual can be held accountable.
I would like to replace the Windtalker reference to the inquest report to the ACTUAL report, but it's as though it's been scrubbed from the web. If you search for it you will find many CBC search results with it plainly in the Goolge or Bing search summary, but scrubbed from the archived article. That's a little bothersome, but I can't explain it.
I'm just trying to make this thing accurate; I'm an American and have no personal agenda on this article, but given what happened to the soldier at Parliament this year could not abide by a simple "someone died but let's not bother mentioning who" for this one. Given the coroner's report was 500 pages, lasted 18 months, and called 125 witnesses I'm surprised it's so hard to locate!
Davepl ( talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I will take the time and replace the youtube sources later today. Yale D. Belanger; P. Whitney Lackenbauer (2015). Blockades Or Breakthroughs?: Aboriginal Peoples Confront the Canadian State. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-7735-4390-4. -- Moxy ( talk) 15:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Oka Crisis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oka Crisis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This is nearly a B-class article but citation style is out-of-date (lacks in-line citations) and there are some disputed sections. Should be cleaned up and considered soon for a good-class nom. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Winegard, Timothy C. (2006) The Court of Last Resort: The 1990 Oka Crisis and the Canadian Forces is available online from Collections Canada. I'm not deeply knowledgeable about this stuff, but it looks to me like a very good source. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oka Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The neutrality of the recent changes seem to present a POV of the dominant culture. More discussion sought on the neutrality of these changes. Some citations were removed without explanation. Netherzone ( talk) 01:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Oka Crisis/Archive 1 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." |
Opinion: Removal of tags is, just like everything else here at Wikipedia, to be determined by consensus. When an edit is challenged, it is the obligation of the editor wishing to make the edit to obtain consensus for the edit. The removal here by Geoff NoNick having been challenged, the tag should remain in place until consensus is determined to remove it. Having said that, it is not obvious to me on quick examination in what way the article is not neutral. That's not to say that it is or is not, in fact, neutral, but only that the argument that it is not is not obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter of the article. If someone should take the time to seek a broader consensus discussion about whether or not the article is neutral, such as one at the neutral point of view noticeboard or via a request for comments, then those contending that it is not neutral are going to have to explain in some detail why they feel that way or concede that the article is neutral and the tag can be removed, since consensus is based upon the weight of argument, not on counting votes. In that light, it would be far better if Netherzone were to explain here on the talk page, in detail, how and why he feels the article to not be neutral so that those issues can be addressed through discussion here as intended by the wiki system. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Geoff NoNick and TransporterMan - First, some clarification regarding communication patterns/styles: I'm not "refusing" anything, nor am I interested in "winning" or "revert warring", and I am perplexed to hear those descriptors. We have a common goal here: to improve the article and establish NPOV. It would be productive to please take an impartial tone that assumes good faith in your communications with me. Understand that if you don't hear back from me immediately, it is not a refusal, rather it is an indication of a busy life. I like to think before I speak. Here are some thoughts on the article re: POV:
NPOV guideline: Avoid stating opinions as facts. With so much unsourced material in the article, it is difficult for the reader (who may be unfamiliar with the incident) to distinguish what is fact from what is opinion. The article needs more inline citations; entire paragraphs are unsourced.
NPOV guideline: Avoid cultural assumptions, use non-judgmental language. For example, if statements such as this: “but throughout the 1990s Kanesatake remained the focus of attention for alleged lawlessness, drug crimes (mostly involving cannabis), and connections to organized crime.” are to be included in the article, it should either be qualified or sourced. The History section also contains assumptions, that connote colonizer's perspective (hence my comment about "dominant culture."
NPOV guideline: Avoid ambiguous terms, language or references that need clarification. “in the pines” – ambiguous spatial area/concept; “some Mohawks” – who, how many, when etc.; “this stand-down” – vernacular?; “some 30 armed warriors” – not precise, statistics should be researched; “some 2,500 regular…” – not precise, statistics should be researched; “occasionally expressed publicly” ambiguous statement within subjective sentence.
NPOV guideline: Reliable sources that show good research. This is the area of the article that was the original “red flag” for me, and why it is premature to remove the tag. Re: the Historical background section – It is poorly sourced. It needs balance of historians from First Nations as well as colonizing culture’s sources. Re: the Crisis section – It is poorly sourced.
Current sources needing update: The Tekastiaks source is a dead link and needs to be updated. The link for the Kanesatake people’s website is a dead link and needs to be updated. The Hamilton Spectator link is dead and needs to be updated. The CBC radio link needs to be updated. It is good policy to update dead links rather than removing them, the WayBack Machine can help with this.
Re: Quaility of sources. No academic literature is sourced in the body of the article, however, many books and peer-reviewed journal articles exist. WP states: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks; Books published by respected publishing houses; Magazines; Journals. These are pretty much absent in the article; a few (older ones) are listed in the citations section. Some serious revisions could be made in this regard. Mainstream newspapers – ok here: present are the NYTimes & Montreal Gazette & Globe and Mail.
Suggestion: Hundreds of more current books and journal articles are available on GoogleBooks GoogleScholar, HighBeam and JSTOR. Including these would vastly improve the article, and its POV. Netherzone ( talk) 18:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've worked on the History section, adding citations and non-sweeping edits to achieve more balance. Also added citations. More work is necessary. I've also begun to refine parts of the Crisis section using sources from both sides of the incident. Netherzone ( talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction, it says there were two fatalities. In the box, there are more details: "1 SQ Groupe d'Intervention operative killed" and "1 Mohawk elder killed". The second fatality is never again mentioned or explained in the article. In the reference (5) given in the box, I found this paragraph:
Earlier during the crisis, neighbouring communities lashed out at the people of Kahnawake for their decision to blockade the Mercier Bridge. On Aug. 28, 1990, a mob gathered at the entrance of the reserve and pelted Mohawks coming out with stones. Joe Armstrong, a 71-year-old man, was hit in the chest and later died of a heart attack.
This incident is also mentioned in ref (1):
In the afternoon of August 28, some residents of Kahnawake also begin to evacuate in a convoy of some 70 vehicles, mostly women, children, & elders. (...) By the time the convoy is underway, a mob of over 500 white people has gathered. They begin throwing rocks at the Mohawk vehicles, smashing windows and injuring persons inside. One elder, Joe Armstrong (71 years old) is hit in the chest with a large boulder. He would die one week later of a heart attack. Although there were approx. 30-40 police on hand, they made no effort to stop the rock throwing.
In my opinion this incident should be mentioned briefly in the article, because I imagine other readers might just be confused as I was by the mention of two fatalities without any further explanation. 2003:E3:5F27:E04:1DBB:E516:FAC6:E5C0 ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If anyone saw the movie 300, this was kind of a similar situation, in which Natives=Spartans (as people defending their lands from imperialistic invaders) and Canadians=Persians (as colonial conquerors). That's a pretty good analogy for Native/European colonist (USA and Canada) relations.
Julian Watson, I think you'll have trouble finding any respectable news sources referring to the Kanienkehaka warriors at Oka as "terrorists." - TheMightyQuill 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TheMightyQuill in that you'll have trouble news sources referring to the Kanienkehaka at Oka as "terrorists", but they do match the definition of terrorists. Being that the mohawks in this situation were non-state actor who used violence and the threat of violence to further a socio-political agenda. Wped87 ( talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
They don't usually call them warriors either. A warrior isn't some university student in a funny camoflauge outfit and a mask who yells racial slurs at real soldiers and blockades a road. Julian Watson
To continue this arguement I must Add That Your ignorance is kind of funny we ARE warriors of our own You Cant Compare us To real soldiers Because We ARE real soldiers We Fight for our own rights for this land which Everyone stole From us Now we face poverty because many of our communitys are just so poor many Not many of us are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.78.202 ( talk) 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Before I start, Julian, thanks for discussing this on the talk page. I should apologize for some of my more hostile comments earlier, when I thought you were simply vandalizing. I see you are definitely making edits in good faith, and I appreciate that.
Now, here's my rationale: Firstly, the role of warrior is an important part of Mohawk culture. I understand that you may feel indigenous culture is a remnant of "the stone age" (as you put it on another article's talk page) but people like Brad Laruque disagree with you. They called themselves warriors, and that counts for something. Reputable media referred to them as warriors, which is even more important, for wikipedia.
Second, while I appreciate wikipedia's definition of warrior, there are clearly multiple definitions...
Furthermore, they were physically defending what they considered their territory by means of force. You might not agree that the Oka crisis was a war by the wikipedia definition, but historically there were few indigenous large-scale prolonged conflicts, yet there have always been mohawk warriors. The American Heritage dictionary also defines warrior as "1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle" which certainly fits in this case.
Essentially, you disagree with their political stance and certainly don't seem to value their culture, and therefor, you're attempting to denigrate their status as warriors. That is POV, not the widely-used term "warrior." - TheMightyQuill 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TheMightyQuill...I am far from an expert on Mohawk culture but I do understand a bit about Aboriginal culture having spent about a third of my life living on a reserve in southern Alberta. I object to the use of the term "warrior" because I think it plays into the whole "noble-savage" stereotype that is so often seen in Canadian(and American I suppose) media. The man in the picture was a economics student who as far as I can tell had never participated in a war, never trained to be in a war, was not a member of any army and belonged to a people who hadn't participated in anything that could be considered an armed conflict for over a century. If he were white nobody would be calling him a "warrior".
I would like to propose a compromise, I will stop calling him a terrorist if you will stop calling him a warrior and we can just call him a student. I think we can both agree that he was a student and that it is certainly not a derogatory term. I find "warrior" to be a demeaning and mildly racist(though unintentionaly) and I would prefer not spend the next 6 months replacing the term. Julian Watson 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
He was not "defending his land" from anyone. He was illeagaly blockading a road in a effort to extort land that courts had already found did not belong to him. He used terror and the threat of violence in an effort to force his ethnocentric views on others. The majority of aboriginal people I know including my mother and grandparents considered the people involved in the Oka crisis to be extremists and thugs and certainly not representation of mainstream aboriginal views. The "warrior societies" on reserves serve the same function as the Triads in Chinese Canadian communities or the Hells Angels in European Canadian communities. They do not exist to "defend" the community or make war, they are organized criminal gangs that engage in drug running and extortion on reserves. The media in Canada refer to these criminals as "warriors" because the Canadian media is biggoted and treats aboriginal people as if we were still living in 1750 instead of 2007. Julian Watson 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We are free citizens of the Haudensaunee/Iroquois Confederacy first and foremost and we will never be anything less. We are ruled by the Great Law of Peace-the oldest constitution and practicing democracy in the world. We were never beaten in war, we made treaties for peace to live in harmony side by side. Treaties are international law and very much binding agreements i.e. the rule of law. We did not break these laws. We did not encroach on land that was designated british/U.S./canada through treaty. We did not coerce,bribe or otherwise change these treaties through nefarious means. We did not have assimilation policies for the"eventual extinction or integration" of your people. We do not have your foreign ideas of selfishness nor did we force our ways and culture on you. We did not destroy the pre-columbian forest that stretched north to south on the eastern half of the north american continent nor contless millions more plant life. We did not slaughter millions upon millions of animal life. We did not commit genocide to satisfy a need for greed. We work to have a good mind. We are patient. We are your brothers and sisters.
So I can't find any articles saying that it was a NATO round that hit the police officer, but rather a 7.62x39 round that could have only come from the Mohawk. However, given that there were multiple firearms being used by the Mohawk, and that the majority of firearms used were destroyed at the barricade before the Mohawk retreated, the polic couldn't identify who fired the fatal shot. So the rants below don't hold any factual significance or accuracy. Blursed Boi ( talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this Mindmatrix], I haven't looked at this article for a long time even before I left in 2011....this article has always been subjecty to propaganda and POV problems. The reality is that the bullet that killed Cpl LeMay was an SQ bullet, as proven by autopsy, so in that case it was his own colleagues who murdered him, accidetnally or otherwise. All CAnadian political and policing articles seem to be under regular attack by those seeking to rewrite history and control opinion; not surprising given who's in charge and who trained him. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Calling it "the reality" just complicates your POV. THe coroner's inquest says an AK-47 that uses a foreign round (7.62mm I suppose), which neither NATO nor police use in Canada, fired the fatal shot. The inquest report gets specific enough that they know the bullet was likely fired from a prone position due to the angle it entered his armpit, missing the vest (which would not stop a rifle round anyway). The report seems quote NPOV as it considered both sides to be true governments, holds both sides accountable, and so on.
It was, in fact, ruled homicide but could not be attributed to any one person. Calling it "Murder" might be technically accurate but seems inflammatory. "Homicide by an unknown Mohawk" is more precise but a pretty clunky sentence fragment.
If someone has authoritative information to the contrary, I'd love to see it and learn from it. Just please don't revert this edit merely because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't match someone's narrative - I just want the actual facts reflected. Davepl ( talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So apparently we need to have a group discussion on whether the edits I proposed (saved then had reverted by mods). It would be great if some people read through it to see if it is up to the guide lines for neutrality and good faith. I cited all of the information added from archives and encyclopaedias that were already being sourced and removed claims that were made that cited from opinion blogs and school presentations (don't think either of those are particularly credible) as well as statements that were not cited and did not reflect any of the sourced articles. Also, I did some grammar edits to make things flow better (at least for me). I spent couple hours screening the entire document, which is why the cumulative edits appears so large, so if some people have time to review, edit the edits and push it to main, that'd be great. FYI, my intention was to make the edits as neutral as possible, but after reading the talk page as well as the main article, I saw/see a considerable amount of bias and bad faith claims that were siding with the Mohawk which slowly made me more and more irritated while writing, so as a disclaimer the language used may not be particularly neutral, but the facts regarding the locations, participants, numbers, and timeline will be. Cheers Wped87 ( talk) 21:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It shouldn't; it was a separate series of events, earlier in the winter, maybe Jan-Feb, Mohawk vs. Mohawk. Am I the only one who remembers the past? i.e. don't have to rely on the major media to repeat/reshape it for me? I don't have time to write an article/ search for cites; if someone could pls take an interest in the topic, it should be part of the background here, but it really is also a separate article, or should be Skookum1 ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I'm popping into this article as I seek to improve the coverage of high-profile land disputes in Canada (such as the
2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests and the
Grand River land dispute), and I'm puzzled as to why Oka uses {{
Infobox military conflict}}
rather than {{
Infobox civil conflict}}
. The military was only called on in the last few weeks of the conflict, and it seems to me that Oka has much more in common with the two articles I've linked above (and
Ipperwash Crisis, which incidentally has no infobox) than with, for instance, the
Falklands War or
The Blitz, or even
The Troubles (to use a somewhat contemporaneous example). I think the infobox should be changed to be {{
Infobox civil conflict}}
.
James Hyett (
talk) 02:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C, what information in the article is not neutral, and what do you propose to do to fix it? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
On one hand, as of 20230725 the article reads as pretty pro-Mohawk, which I imagine is to be considered the neutral POV from a 21st century perspective. Even calling it the Kanesatake Resistance would not have been neutral 20 years ago, no one outside the movement had ever heard that term. It would be like calling what happened in Ukraine in the 1940s the Holodomor in the 1980s, to anyone outside Ukrainian circles. So that's a definite move in the direction of accepting Mohawk claims and accounts. On the other hand, I am actually impressed by the neutrality toward overall Mohawk claims that is implied by actually noticing that the Mohawk peoples conquered, colonized and displaced the previous inhabitants from the area in the 17th century. That's actually praiseworthy. The Beaver Wars are often forgotten as is the fact that aboriginal peoples actually warred with, conquered, killed, and enslaved or displaced one another, with their land claims moving around accordingly. Kudos. No change suggested. Random noter ( talk) 02:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a concerted effort to erase any mention of Joe Armstrong's death by heart attack a week after he was hit in the chest with a rock, one of thousands that "locals" pelted a motorcade of Kanien:keha'ka fleeing for their lives with, as well as the near-fatal bayonetting of a 14 year old Waneek Horn-Miller by a Canadian Forces soldier as she was carrying her sister Kaniehtiio Horn on her back. While the former instance could be debated in terms of cause and effect, it's not debatable that it happened, and is an integral part of the narrative from the Kanien:keha'ka perspective. As for the latter, it unambiguously happened -- there is no debate. Both incidents have been widely covered in media, both contemporary and recent. What possible justification is there to keep these out of both the body of the article as well as, in Armstrong's case, the infobox death totals? It's almost like someone -- or, several someones -- insist that so-called Canada maintain the sympathy advantage in perpetuity... 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C ( talk) 02:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)