Talk:Oka Crisis/Archive 1

Suggestions
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)


 * Agreed. As well, there needs to be more detail about the Canadian army part of the crisis and the date the army was called in . I believe it was a major historical event in terms of tv news as well and we should discuss the role of CBC Newsworld which was still in its infancy much like the girl in the well was for CNN years before when it was a new network. A lot of rules about how to deal with live events were made up on the spot during this time including airing "unedited" tapes.   Double Blue  (Talk) 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of rules about how to deal with live events were made up....". Yeah, they sure were; and I'd rather have Newsworld "in its infancy" than emasculated by corporate and government interests as it has been ever since the peak of the Oka Crisis; the military was very clear about their control, and about limiting the CBC's ability to serve the public; Newsworld has ever since been a choke-fest of talking heads, documentaries, boring business coverage - but NO LIVE FEEDS EVER AGAIN, as these can be too politically volatile, as Oka so clearly demonstrated; it was not until after the military took control of the media, in fact, that public opinion began to turn agains the Mohawks; because they could no longer hear and see them, but only hear and see what the military wanted them to.


 * Also, glaringly absent from the article overall is any discussion about how the politicians and political parties largely stood aside to let the military run things, and how an effective state of emergency (aka martial law) was in effect despite no state of emergency being declared. But of course, being good Canadians, it's so much easier to obey than question, isn't it?

Related pages

 * I've started a page for Joseph Onasakenrat. Any additions would be appreciated. Pburka 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also created a stub for the Honoré Mercier Bridge Pburka 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that Jean Ouellette and Gilles Proulx could both use small biographical articles. Pburka 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

pre-Oka violent conflicts

 * the first of a number of violent conflicts between Indigenous people and the Canadian Government in the late 20th century.

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)
 * I put it in, so maybe I can help. I'll admit to being ignorant of other major conflicts in the second half of the 1950s, but perhaps that's because of the lack of media attention you mentioned. How about the first of a number of well-publicised violent conflicts ? -- TheMightyQuill 10:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

post-Meech Oka Crisis stuff
Reply to someone who'd changed a mention I put into the Meech Lake Accord article:


 * I saw your edit of my change to the Oka Crisis article, and I have to disagree. The matter-of-fact reality of the crisis may have been the Mayor of Oka's ill-considered golf course wet dreams, and the jock-shock boyos of the SQ rampaging into thick woods with guns blazing, but the political mood of the times were exactly as I said them: and it was widely perceived that Quebec's hostility to natives for "blocking the Meech Lake Accord" underlay both the Mayor of Oka's intransigence and his disregard for the Kanesetake Mohawks, and also beneath the behaviour of the SQ and the Quebec government over the matter, to say nothing of the Van Doos themselves. To believe that the Oka Crisis was ONLY about a golf course is just disingenuous; it was a given at the time that Quebeckers were "out to get" natives, and Oka was the manifestation of that, even though you want to claim it was just over a golf course. The most ironic line I remember is from one of the off-duty SQ who were stoning the refugee convoy as it fled Kahnwake on the eve of the military's ultimatum: (in heavily-accented French): "They [Mohawks] are a conquered people - they should behave that way". Ironic because the Iroquois were on the winning side in 1812-14 as well as in 1763. And I don't think Quebeckers have really forgotten that either.Skookum1 19:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it was about way more than a golf course - it was about autonomy/sovereignty/indigenous rights/anti-colonialism. But the blocking of the Meech Lake Accord was about the same thing. I'm not sure if you could draw a direct link between the Oka crisis and Meech Lake. Not that they weren't related, but it's hard to prove, NPOV. I can't find the edit of your reference to Meech, so I'm not sure exactly what you had said. The quote you mentioned above would be good. Do you have a source? -- TheMightyQuill 10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More info about Canadian Forces intervention
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. &mdash; 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)


 * I rather suspect that someone on coke would have had greater trouble restraining himself given the provocation. Looks more like adrenaline to me, but if you can source it reliably... Geoff NoNick 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * you don't know very much about coke behaviour, then. Crystal meth or other speeds might cause trouble restraining yourself, but coke is known for macho intimidation eyeballing and does not imply that someone cannot control themselves; quite the opposite.  Don't believe everything you see on Scarface, OK?Skookum1 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I spent a while promoting loft parties in Montreal, so I have a reasonably good idea about the effect of coke on people. I can understand your wish to subvert what is, indeed, a very powerful image in the Canadian public conscience for the purpose of your cause, but you discredit yourself further every time you try to pursue this topic.
 * Any speculation as to whether or not Pte Cloutier was 'blasted' on coke or not is not going to proceed beyond just that - speculation - regardless of whether or not you're able to find some ragsheet that was willing to print it. As far as the 'evidence' that he was on coke being that he was in a staring contest, are suggesting that Larocque was on coke too?  Of course not.  Get over it.


 * I was just trying to be funny with the pornstar comment. I'm sure he want all that popular, and I didn't mean to suggest we should include it in the article. I tend to agree with you about the coke/control issue... and there will certainly be no proof he was 'blasted' when the picture was taken.


 * I'm not making this up, and if the much-propagandized image's context to the Canadian public is harmed by it, it's not my fault; I don't have the cite but will find it. As a whole, I think a lot of the apologism for official authoritarianism in this country takes the same tack all the time - "harming the national image".  If Canada hadn't spent a century and a half whitewashing its history, and if its news networks weren't still in the habit of whitewashing news, there wouldn't be a need to have to dispute such things; but because you didn't hear this item is no reason to say that I'm discrediting myself.  Instead, what I see is you being gullible as to the reliability of the mainstream account/news.


 * And in all your loft parties where you saw coke behaviour, did you see anyone lose control on a mano-a-mano eyeball confrontation? And if you did, could you be certain it was the coke and not the other things whomever might have been taking?  I stand by my dispute with you that coke doesn't necessarily lead to a loss of control of testosteronal feelings, especially in a high-profile in-front-of-the-camera situation as with this image; and you should know, since you ran loft parties, that coke is suited to staredowns and macho bluffing and subviolent behaviour of that kind, and does not necessarily lead to outbreaks of spontaneous violence.  Good case to be made that a lot of the Mohawks might have been blasted too, except that it was a drug treatment centre they were defending/encamped in and I doubt it would have been smiled upon.  My main dispute here is the positive press given the military in the absence of anything positive said about the "other side"; which constitutes POV by sin of omission.Skookum1 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct, both sides should be told; however, as per wikipedia policy, the more 'popular' view of what happened should be given a larger portion of the article. Both sides should be told, fairly and impartially, however, your personal views don't mean that the article should spend much time disscussing the grand consiracy that (aparently) constitutes the Canadian society, journalism, and politics. Have fun editing!Easter rising 13:50, 15 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)


 * Everything you just said (Skookum1) is POV. The fact is that the perception and legacy of the incident, as accepted by the majority of historians and journalists, is that the military acted with great professionalism an extremely difficult and high-tension situation. You have to keep in mind that the military does not really train for this kind of operation, they train to destroy legitimate enemies in combat... therefore the restraint they showed in Oka is a credit to them and the institution. As for trying to blame them for "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 were called into play by ELECTED officials, so in reality, as a voter YOU sent them into action. It is not for the military to question orders unless they are un-ethical, and none of those orders were unethical. That all being said, you're right there are two sides to this story, and both should be heard, meaning that the generally accepted perception, that Canadian Soldiers acted with the utmost professionalism, should be included.Easter rising


 * To date, no elected official has taken responsibility for the military's abrogation of freedom of the press (presumably this was the Minister of Nat'l Defence, but....) and one of the sickening parts of the political setting of Oka was the way the Mulroney Tories as well as Opposition politicians didn't say much; in fact, they pretty much hid out for the duration. The only elected official I can recall whose name is associated with the crisis and who took any kind of responsibility was Claude Ryan; and I don't vote in Quebec so don't point the finger at my having "voted" for him, or for the Mulroney Tories for that matter.  Point is that there was a constitutional interregnum that still has no official legislation, not even an order-in-council, to back it up.  And what you're doing is telling me a) trust your politicians b) trust your academics and c) trust your journalists: "Follow the leader" and tug your forelock and don't question too closely; it's un-Canadian.  I won't live with that and I don't know how other Canadians can so willingly listen to the revised and bowderlized histories of recent events such as Oka and Charlottetown; the three groups you've asked me to trust are the three least deserving.  There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning political morality and due process that a proper account of the Oka Crisis requires answering; I don't see those here, and instead I see excuse-making and, with this latest bit about "professionalism by the military", a POV because the Mohawk Council of Women and the Haudenosaunee roles in the affair/history are not mentioned at all (and I'd put Ellen Gabriel way ahead of the military on the "professional" role).Skookum1 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See everything you're saying is POV... you are arguing under the assumption that the natives at Oka were right to take up arms, and that everythign the military/politiciians/journalists did was in the wrong.


 * You're putting words in my mouth, like any "good" spin doctor; I said nothing about the Mohawk Warriors taking up arms being right, but I did express discontent that the position and role of the Haudenosaunee in the crisis, and the important role of the Council of Women, is glaringly absent in the article. I also think that giving kudos to the military who came in invoked as peacekeepers and wound up executing a siege, then supporting a undeclared state of martial law throughout the Montreal region (if there was a declared state of emergency that suspended civil rights, someone please cite that legislation or cabinet order).  I also think that the politicians ran for F**KING cover and stayed out of the way, other than Claude Ryan - whose SQ of course were the ones who precipitated the crisis; the Mulroney cabinet are conspicuous in the history of this incident by their absence and silence during it.  The only other politician I remember was Jesse Jackson, and of course we know which side he was on.  There's also no mention in the article that the ballistics studies post facto, as well as the angle of entry, indicate that the weapon that killed Cpl. Lemay was a police weapon, not a Mohawk one.  There's so many sins of omission in this article that it can't be called anything else but POV because of their absence.


 * If you have such a problem with ommisions in this article... THEN ADD THE INFO... no one is stopping you. The fact is, the comment about the professionalism of the military in the Oka crisis WILL be included in the acrticle, because by the Wikipedia rules, it is a valid and verifiable POV, provived that it is described in a neutral tone. If you can find and reputable souces for your conspiracy theories and anti-establishment POV, please feel free to add that content to the article. All this other disscussion amounts to nonsense. Have fun editing!Easter rising 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do support the devolution of native mini-states within Canada, which was a theme that the pre-military-shutdown discussions on NewsWorld and in the other public media were beginning to tackle with, improbable as it sounds to people obsessed with continent-spanning semi-unitary centralist/federalist states. The Haudenosaunee have legitimate historical grievances concerning territory as well as self-government rights; as the recent crisis in Caledonia reminds us.  It works for Liechtenstein and Andorra, why can't it work for the Haudenosanee or the Nisga'a Nation?  Oh, but of course then the next spin is how I'm not a loyal Canadian and don't support our troops/politicians and follow our other leaders like a good little Canadian merino.Skookum1 16:13, 15 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)


 * it was in the context of media coverage of his later possession charges that one magazine/newspaper somewhere (maybe Terminal City here in Vancouver, which has/had a good trait of reporting things other newspapers wouldn't go anywhere near, esp. Gustafsen Lake) that he had been on coke during the eyeball-to-eyeball photo shoot; the context of the account was that he'd been a user for a number of years at the time of his arrest, suggesting that he was "on" at the time of the famous photo; I'll find the cite if I can when I go to Terminal City's archives about various other stuff.


 * If you can find the source, by all means include the info, but make sure not to present it as 'the truth'... even if a newspaper in vancouver did publish it, who's to say if he was snorting coke that day or not?Easter rising 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Resources
There's some good detailed info at the band council's web site. Seems to be largely NPOV. &mdash; 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)

"Mohawk w/Warrior" vs. "Mohawk person"
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)
 * Maybe you should add citationneeded tags to statements you feel specifically needs sourcing instead. That will make other editors' work much easier. Unless you can specify state what exactly makes this section otherwise POV, please remove the template. Circeus 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine as far as political bias/content goes, but "Mohawk Warrior" is standard spelling/capitalization style for that "title", and is commonplace in the Canadian media (and their own website). They are not generic-w warriors, but Mohawk Warriors.  Same as you wouldn't write "U.S. marine" or the "Canadian Forces vandoos".  As for the political POV thing goes, it should be borne in mind (and commented upon) that the official account is the "other side of the story" here, and the official account is heavily censored and politicized to start with; when the "other side of the story" is a pack of lies and information-wheedling, if it's to be included then a POV warning on it would be necessary.  Or in history of some nefarious regime, is it requisite that the regime's version of their era should be included out of "fairness"; e.g. Mengistu's faction's version of Ethiopia during their tenure, or Allende-ite histories of Chile?Skookum1 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the situation as it exists in Canada is anthing more than superficially similar to anything in Ethiopia or Chile. To suggest a parallel is nothing more than to play fast and loose with the facts for dramatic effect; and to deny that any history of the Oka crisis is going to be influenced by POV is to deny that the "official" account of the natives and the "official" account of their opponents are both grounded in some facts while conveniently excluding others. That being said, I'm not exactly certain which facts in the historical section are deemed to be in dispute - can anyone clarify so we can dig up citations or correct as necessary and get rid of the NPOV tag? Geoff NoNick 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Easter rising 16:54, 15 June 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)


 * "My" government? What you're doing is guilt-by-accusation, as if by being white I'm guilty of all the rapes, thefts, betrayals and murders of other white men in other times.  Yeah, I might even be distantly related to them but by how many generations and on which side I wouldn't want to begin to guess.  But you're doing a guilt-by-association thing here, where the association being made is that I'm white and therefore am stupid and don't know anything; in fact I know quite a bit more about the rapes, thefts, betrayals and murders concerning aboriginal history in BC than you ever will, and that includes some of the internecine wars which the white man had nothing to do with as well as all the recent stuff at Seton Portage and Gustafsen Lake and elsewhere that you've never heard of.  Trying to portray me in the enemy camp because of my skin colour (which you're presuming on, though you happen to be correct; I might have been black or polka-dotted, for that matter, but you presumed I'm white and accused me of supporting "my" government; in fact I'm a big-time critic of the Canadian constitutional system and am anything but supportive of the increasingly authoritarian drift of the Canadian system; that you've thrown your assumptions all over me is just a sign of the deep racist revanchism you have sunk to in your hatred of the white man; not all white people are guilty of the crimes you so resent, and some white people are guilty of crimes far worse in other places, too (just ask the Irish about the potato famine, or any of the Irish Wars).  Somehow you also missed my point that I support the sovereignty and independence of the haudenosaunee, and know the legal history, and see no reason why it can't become a functioning microstate, under its own laws and government, operating in North America the way Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino do in Europe; a patchwork quilt throughout Ontario, granted, but a historically valid one.  Do I make myself clear?  Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm the bogeyman.  Maybe if you wiped some of the warpaint you've got on you might be able to see that I'm not General Custer.  And I'm not a supporter of the federal governmental system in Canada, nor indeed of BC's, and was behind native self-government right from the start.  I've also learned that nobody has a right to tell anybody else to shut up about their opinion on something, as you're trying to do, while hurling out-of-thin-air judgements and condemnations around at the same time.  On the other hand, if you don't want anyone outside your own race (so-defined by yourself as separate from all white men being the same) to have any input, or even a right to ask questions, then maybe you don't want support and just want to rage against the world, refusing to talk to anyone who doesn't have the right skin colour and not giving a shit if anyone listens.  Keep it up.  I'm sure you'll accomplish a lot that way.Skookum1 00:53, 19 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)
 * Would you guys calm down a little please? You're both hurling personal insults that are unwarranted and turning what could be a useful debate into a shouting match. To start, try to look past the hostile accusations the other person is making and look at the rest of their post. -- TheMightyQuill

Statement in Intro is incorrect

 * ''It resulted in three deaths, and would be the first of a number of violent conflicts between Indigenous people and the Canadian Government in the late 20th century.

?? 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!!!!


 * And your comment relates to this article how? Geoff NoNick 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chant
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)
 * We must also not forget that Racism exists on every side in some portion. Having worked and lived with the two ethnicities basically involved in this crisis, it would be ignorant of anyone to say that forms of racism were not involved on both sides.  We have to face the fact that we live in a Country that treats minorities very different from non-minorities.  If a caucasian Farmer's land in Saskatchewan was needed for a highway, if he and his family took up arms to defend his land he would be immediately arrested and charged. This is the reality that faces Canadians of any ethnicity.Brchkal 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and Reversions
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)

Mohawk Civil War redirect
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)

Gaming Commission
Why is "licences" written in quotes? Kahnawake is a respected licensor, affiliated with Gaming Associates.


 * According to the article, Both the Canadian and Quebec governments dispute the legality of this operation, but have not risked taking further action. If the legitimacy of the operation has been called into question, the any licences issued are naturally also questioned. If the legitimacy of the Gaming Commission is not in question, you should change the article. -- TheMightyQuill 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem relevant. If there are sources linking the KGC with this crisis that's fine, otherwise it's just an opinion piece. I've removed the paragraph pending the production of reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical background
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)
 * As with many Canadian political articles, I think a hasty removal of a POV tag is inadvisable. Especially in this case - there are too many unanswered questions and bones of contention about the Oka Crisis to render this easily NPOV-able.  My main issue at this point, other than the carefully-jigged tone of much of the military-placed content, is the complete omission of the seizure of NewsWorld and also the internment of a couple of hundred "non-combatants" including international human rights observers, all without charges - or a later apology/redress.  The emergency powers used were never publicly stated, although there's a passage in the article now about communications between the Quebec and federal government about them; the public was told nothing, the politicians were invisible during the crisis; the article makes it sound like all this was above-board; it wasn't; even the NDP were running for cover (except, I think, Svend Robinson).  The circumstances of the evacuation of elders and children has more detail (one off-duty SQ was seen on camera, rock in hand, saying "they are a conquered people, they should behave that way" (he was a quebecois so the irony was very pointed, especially because the Mohawks helped conquer the British conquer Quebec).  Anyway the cite for the seizure of NewsWorld I've looked for before but I can't find a date or would have added it already; ditto with the exact number of those detained (some detained were in other parts of the country).  There's people also omitted from the article - Jesse Jackson dropped by for an ill-advised press conference; but Ellen Gabriel, who because she became a legislator later probably has an article, and Jenny Jack, the Tahltan activist who figured prominently in the on-air confrontations/stalemates, is also unmentioned.  The tone of censorship is all over this article; it may sound NPOV but it's not errors of omission that are the problem; it's the deliberate omissions.  Like so much else in Canadian politics/history.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 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 didn't say YOU did; what I'm saying is that current/citable web content omits any mention of said events or individuals, despite their high profile during the crisis. Which, being largely disemployed at the time, I watched all day long at times, including the talking-heads announcement from de Chastelain or whomever it was that the military had taken over the CBC; this was the night before the final ultimatum as I recall.  You may not have heard of it - a sign of the thoroughness of the "washing" of the public record afterwards by the Big Media (who were more successful later in quashing fair coverage of Gustafsen Lake entirely); but I actually watched it go down.  CBC Newsworld archives don't even record these events; I've posted a related query at Talk:CBC Newsworld but again, no answers despite the questions being there for quite a while.  I'm not imaging this, or claiming it - it happened.  But you'll have a hard time finding online cites for it as I have.  Similar problems abound with highly-charged Canadian political history, be it on Grant Bristow or the Solidarity Crisis of 1983; post-facto "information washing".  Because of the political nature of the article and my inability to webcite these things, I've left them out for fear of starting an edit war; I've been asking for help researching them; instead I see people wanting to delcare the article NPOV because what's there is all nicely cited (supposedly) and fair (supposedly).  I'm really surprised there's no Ellen Gabriel article....that's like not having an Elijah Harper article (geez, I hope there is one...).  I'll look over the article again for instances of the "tone" thing, but it's these omissions which are most troubling to me.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 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)
 * I move to make Canada into the 51st American state. That should resolve this issue of lack of writers. OldManRivers (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note (lol), I agree with MQ. Actually, didnt one or a few of the PM's say their policy regarding the "Indian Problem" was to not make it a problem until the media made it a problem because it wasn't a "priority" for the Canadian public?  Thus, protests, road blocks, etc. would get the media's attention, then, the gov't attention, and become a problem.   (Frak this has become the status quo for making change in Canada with FN/Indigenous peeps).  I'm quote shocked actually.  Isn't the internet supposed to house all information.  The Gospel of the Internet.  Or is it the Gospel of Wikipedia? lol.  OldManRivers (talk) 07:50, 8 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)
 * No, no, no GNN - I watched it happen. I didn't hear it happened, I watched it happen.  The media aren't credible outlets in this coutnry, as a tour around somewhere like the BC Mary blog on Railgate will teach you.  I suspect what's going on here is also generational; I'm 52, I know OMR's young, not sure about MQ or yourself.  The media have taught the public not to care and you guys are the product of that; not just ever told the full information but raised in an environment where the reporters and pundits repeat "the public doesn't care" and then go back to covering pedophiles moving into your neighbourhood instead of real news; the public did care.  Because in the lead-up to Oka, and throughout the '80s in fact, the tide of public opinion, from polls through to writeups, the public consensus was that the Indians needed a fair deal, and public sentiment was much more on the side of the little guy than Big Government even before Oka started.  Yeah, there'd already been efforts by Frsaer Institute types to sway the public against hte Indians, but mostly it was only SHARE BC types (that's an org) who trashed the Indian agenda.  What was going on through the course of the crisis was that the haudenosaunee was getting airtime and its very legitimate case to ministatehood was making way too much sense; and was seen as a precedent, and not a bad idea; the SQ and the CF were looking increasingly bad on-air, and there was a political vacuum; the general who sat in front of the mic that night invokved the CBC Charter "to promote national unity and prevent regionalism" it runs in part, not those exact words, as the reason there would be no more live coverage, and all the panel shows and interviews with poeple like Ellen Gabriel and Jenny Jack were silenced (along with human rights critics and those talking about illegal arrests of same).  The talking-head anchor who replaced the usuals from then on has been on-air since - her screechy voice gee-whizzing on road trips and antique shows; she was a nobody until that night, from then on she's been one of the principal CBC people; heads rolled that night.  This is REAL, I didn't "hear" this, I watched it.  I also saw the shift in op-ed coverage in the wake of these events, and watched the media-washing of the Charlottetown results into, supposedly, "a vote against natives, women and Quebec" when it weasd nothing of the kind; it was a vote against the politicans and the pundits; who all sat there the night their little agenda got shut down saying, "what happened?  why didn't they do what they were told to?  What can we do to have more influence on their voting next time?"  That's nearly-verbatim, mind you, right on air.  I gave some thought on how to cite this; aren't standing military orders or executed ones or whatever they're called, aren't they all on-file somewhere?  Because the orders to seize CBC Newsworld must exist (be interesting to see who gave the go-ahead); it's that problem of the exact date; it wasn't the night before the final ultimatum, I don't think; there was a day or two lag in there.  So sorrry to pull the grey eminence thing, guys, it's not a question of hearsay on my part; it's a question of being an eye-witness.  Including an eye-witness to how the public was shifted from very pro-native in the '80s back to overall redneckdom by media massaging; they've done it on environmental, fiscal and social issues too. I'm gonna send a note to Glavin, see if he remembers who the Straight's reporter/columnist during Oka was, or someone who might remember the date.  I've written Newsworld a few times to ask, no one ever writes back; I've also written the CBC Ombudsman about why they won't cover the Railgate case, he told me to write the boss, I did, got no answer; wrote again, no answer, or no real answer.  The answer was "the public isn't interested" but the meaning, especially from CanWEst Global is "we don't want the public to be interested".  In Railgate's case they just don't cover it or when a pundit has to mention it, he claims "there's no substance to it" and gets back to the pedophiles and paving contracts; with Oka it was being covered, way too well.  In the months and yeears after Oka and the Spicer Commission and Charest Commission (betcha haven't heard of them either), all the feel-good lets'-make-it-better sentiment in the public was turned around to jadedness, and the public fed more hockey and soap operas and while native social issues get covered (partly as a way to turn people off) and other things the media tell them they care about more.  No, don't be innocent about the media being objective; at least in the US there's more diversity, more competition for news; up here the CBC has no balls (what balls they did have got cut off during Oka), and the private media are part of the political machine; if there was more competition here, more diversity in media, Oka and Railgate would have been a lot harder to silence; if the Mulroney case was going on in the US his "I didn't do anything illegal" would be getting send-up after send-up by comics and columnists, and we'd have Congressional hearings by now; if the CIA had been caught red-handed meddling with an opposition political party the way CSIS did in the course of using Grant Bristow (another "washed" history online) it would be impeachment-time for the boss.  Not here; last night on the radio I heard some Harper cabinet type or Tory SEnator say say, about Mulroney, "we feel that a confidential inquiry will be more efficient than an open public inquiry" - and say it with a straight face.  This is not an open country; it is a tightly managed, tightly controlled mindspace.  The media don't want you to know, so they tell you that you don't want to know, and show you what they want to show you.  CSI-Miami, American Idol, cooking shows and news about the perv down the street and the danger to your kids from sharp edges on balloons.  Before Oka, Newsworld was 24 hours very live of anything there was footage of, world-wide; it was fascinating; and then something started to happen on the doorstep of Montreal, and it got more fascinating.  Until the powers-to-be decided it was too fascinating and shut it down; during that time notions about irredentist statelets like the Ganienkehaka or the Gitxsan Confederacy emerging from within the Canadian map, or gbeing part of the Canadian map, were being talked about seriously and not in a hostile way.  It's all changed sicne then, like so much of the way things are in Canada; this isn't original research, this is just an account, an eyewitness thing; I wish I could explain better the way things have been done; and I've noted before that younger generations (that's anyone under 45) just don't have the same remembrances of things; because they're much more media trained/inundated and there's no real publishing/editorial competition here to give them a chance to think for themselves, instead of being told what they do think.  And OMR I think you generalize too much about white people not caring about Indians; it's the politicians and the paid hacks in the media who don't want them to care, or who have taught them to.  People in the '80swanted a fair settlement, and until the media seizure began people were on the Mohawks side (including polls)......Skookum1 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't mean to sound paranoid, I'm just telling it like it is - "there is a conspiracy, this whole country is a conspiracy" as one senior politico I know put it. Pynchon's view on such situations is there's nothing you can do about it, so deal with it and hope they don't notice that you know ("Proverbs for Paranoids" no. 6 or so, tucked into Gravity's Rainbow somewhere).  This is a country where the political system is "institutionalized bagmen" as one wag put it about what an MP or MLA does, plus the cabal of lobbyists and spin doctors who cluster around them.  A conspiracy doesn't need an ideology or need to be secret; it can be right out in the open; and calling down people bringing up stuff like waht I've brought up as conspiracy-theorists is one ofthe ways "the conspiracy" has trained its subjects to do, including bald-faced black-is-white excuse making and outright straight-faced lying.  And passive censorship.....and not-so-passive....re media conspiracy, well, let's put it this way, I know three different reporters who left major dailies because they didn't want to change what they'd written as ordered by their editor/publisher...those who remain at their desks write what they're told.  Including denouncing anyone who criticizes the media lockdown of this country as a "conspiracy theorist".Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 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)
 * I don't have time for more right now, but I've remembered that it was Valerie Pringle who was the until-then-nobody staffer, at CBC Winnipeg I think, who was pulled out of hte shadows to anchor things afte the military takeover; not used to being in front of the camera, with a scratchy voice (still has the scratchy voice...).....it appeared at the time that all the regular anchors/news staff refused to comply with the military, and so they found someone who would....I wonder if she'd care to recall the date/circumstance if we wrote her ;-| ?.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO
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)


 * For future reference, I'd argue "fair use" of the "classic" image from Oka (As a note, it's not actually Lasagna in the image, it's Brad Laroque...a fact that wasn't realised until years later)

"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)

North
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)

"Warrior"?
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)
 * There are plenty of sources that used the warrior term including, as I recall, from the participants themselves. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are the Mohawk Warrior Society. . Double Blue  (Talk) 00:03, 18 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)

Looking for resources
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)

Control of Information
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)


 * Demanding proper sourcing and documentation isn't western, it's simply good scholarship. You'll find it practiced by Chinese, Indians, Europeans, people of all shapes and colours who care about truth, and for good reason.  Just accepting someone's statement "well my cousin Bob told me that..." isn't an efficient way of searching for truth.  You'll also not that some rules for sourcing are particular to wikipedia -- in particular secondary sources are preferred, because they are most appropriate for encyclopedias.  Primary research isn't done here, because that isn't the goal of this site.  Blowfish (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise in advance for any implied defence of cultural imperialism, but there really is no way to do this collaborative, volunteer encyclopedia other than the one that is used. Multiple opinions (how many?) are good in theory, but simply are unworkable and require some appeal to references to resolve arguments. Yes, this sadly confines evidence to permanent media and largely excludes oral traditions and often leads dry, boring articles. Whackos on this talk page aside, neutral point of view WP:NPOV is a central tenet of Wikipedia and please believe me, we try as far as we can to stick to it, within the constraints placed on us by the need for a fact to be confirmed by some reliable source of information. For myself, I don't see this particlar issue as a win/lose, but merely tragic that people are so intolerant and blind that it ever happened, but I don't see serious POV in the article. Doug (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's been much effort made here to be neutral. Indeed I was only six or seven paragraphs into the article before I felt moved to come here and leave a comment.  However, as has been previously stated, this is happening more and more with Wikipedia.  Whoever has the most resources to dedicate to rewriting wins the day.  I'm sure for those with an axe to grind this article passes the neutrality test, but I can tell you, as a relatively uninterested observer who came here to read about Oka, it's not even close.  Zipperfish (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (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)

hate-mongering re Philpot's book
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:
 * Robin Philpot wrote a book about English Canada's use of the crisis as a political tool following the failed Meech Lake Accord: Oka: dernier alibi du Canada anglais'' (1991).

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)

Resolution
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)

Tone and Value of Article
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)
 * re b)The Mohawk do not constitute a sovereign people in the sense that would allow them to have their own military. Even if they were, those "Warriors" were not appointed to represent them. re c): It is a big deal because you argue that these college kids constituted a military according to the law of nations. Since they clearly weren't appointed by any authority with the right to do so, overwhelming public support would be the only possibility to even argue that they were some sort of Mohawk military rather than an outlaw guerilla. Malc82 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "who tend to rely on the Wikipedia for doing academic articles, speeches etc." - stop it right there. WP articles strife to be as accurate as possible, but they are not Reliable Sources. Use them to get an overview or to gain info, but you should never ever "rely" on WP, least of all for an academic article. Malc82 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (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)

POV problems
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'm no expert, but Googling revealed a number of sites offering evidence (sometimes of the KKK in Canada generally, sometimes in Saskatchewan, sometimes in connection with opposition to Catholic French-Canadians, and sometimes suggesting that the Klan was active in the past but not now:, , , , , ...


 * One of the most significant is ("The Ku Klux Klan has a long history in Canada, stretching back to the 1920s. At present, the Klan is most active in Quebec and on the Prairies, although Klan activity is also reported from every region of the country. In 1991, three Manitoba Klansmen were charged with a number of offences, including the advocacy of genocide.") --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. I will withdraw the POV tag. The claims seemed too outrageous to be true, but do seem to have some documentation supporting them. Thanks. Pburka 17:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I was surprisd too. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Re the Klan thing in Quebec; about the same time as Oka, give or take a year or two, was the trial of the two Quebecois non-coms over the murder of Billy Bartholomew, the son of the quartermaster at CFB Reimagen in Germany. Tried to find some web coverage of this but no luck so far; newspaper coverage reported that the court heard testimony that one of the two French guys was recruiting the other to join "Les Rouges", a secret organization within the military, police and other organizations "out to kill anglos, blacks and Indians".  The judge ruled this inadmissible in court for whatever reason I can't remember; but it did remind me of the way Ollie North's "secret government" comments were ruled out of order during Iran-Contra.  It's dangerous IMO to bring up this material at all, but I did want to corroborate the idea that racist-fascist organizations are alive and well in Quebec, and there was a contemporary (to Oka) example available; probably only citable through pay-for archives at CP (Canadian Press) or the newspaper archives (for anyone who has access search "Billy Bartholomew" and maybe murder+Reimagen).


 * OK, my turn now. I was one of the Warriors on the Mercier Bridge, and what we heard concerning the Longitude 74 chapter of the Ku Klux Klan was that they took advantage of the mob hysteria at the protests in Chateauguay to both form their chapter (apparently the first French Catholic chapter ever) and to distribute leaflets at some of the larger protests where over ten thousand people were present. We had also heard that after some of these protests, the ground would be heavily littered with KKK flyers and leaflets, indicating that most protesters were discarding them. What at first seemed to be a crazy story that could not possibly be true had eventually turned into a footnote on the lunacy that often tainted the whole crisis. I can personally attest to the racism that was present, as I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. That is not to say that Chateauguay residents in general are racists, but some of the less tolerant characters were definitely running about unchecked at that point in time. In the end, the KKK had little influence, aside from giving everyone on all sides a shot of cold water to the face, as it clearly underscored how far out of control things had spiraled. A final thought regarding the debates about POV in this article. There are so many differing reports expressing opposite perspectives in regards to this dispute/conflict/rebellion, that the only truly neutral option is to delete the article. The media was heavily manipulated by all sides during the Oka Crisis, and many media outlets also had their own agendas as well. The politics, propaganda and misunderstanding here were extremely intense from all angles. The result is that there will probably never be a version of this article that can be fully trusted by anyone. Perhaps this article should be replaced by TWO articles, titled "Oka Crisis (Mohawk POV)" and "Oka Crisis (Canada/Quebec POV)" Arcticmohawk 16:07, 1 August 2006 (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)

Coroner's Report to replace Windspeaker reference
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oka Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050307122146/http://www.kanesatake.com:80/heritage/crisis/events.html to http://www.kanesatake.com/heritage/crisis/events.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good source
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020020211/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/93624.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/93624.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of recent changes
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)
 * Hi Netherzone - The citations that were removed were dead links to sites that no longer exist. In some cases these were self-published sources. The remainder of the edits remove repetition in the description of events, clarify the order of events as they unfolded, and expand the historical context with properly cited sources. I removed the POV tag because there had been no discussion or debate on this page about its neutrality in over two years. Is there a specific fact in the article you question, or feel would be relevant to include in an article about the Oka Crisis? I don't object to leaving POV tags intact when there is an on-going debate, but I don't think we should just leave it there because it had been there for so long that it's become part of the furniture. The events described are undeniably contentious, but I don't think the objectively established facts can't be described in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's POV policy. Geoff NoNick (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Geoff NoNick -- There was quite a bit of material removed from the article, not only citations. I doubt I would have restored the tag if so much content had not been removed. Just because a POV tag is "as old as furniture" does not mean the neutrality issue has been resolved. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What material was removed that you feel should be restored? If all we're arguing about is the tag itself (and not specific instances of POV) then we're not really debating about POV, which is what the tag is intended for. Geoff NoNick (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absent a response, I'm going to remove the POV tag in a week. Geoff NoNick (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the POV tag. Your response was not convincing nor sufficient, and critically important information was removed from the article. It would be appreciated if your time frame was not imposed on other editors. Netherzone (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The presence of the POV tag isn't a topic for subjective opinion; either the article fails one of the criteria of WP:NPOV or it does not. Which NPOV criterion that forms a part of Wikipedia policy do you feel this article violates? Note that "POV of the dominant culture" is not a criteria for use of the POV tag under Wikipedia policy. If you feel it should be, there exists a mechanism for you to advance that case, but it is not in this article. This is the third time you've referred to important material having been removed from the article without either identifying what it might be or making any effort to restore it to the article. I am open to compromise but am getting the distinct sense that you are failing to discuss this issue in a way that seeks to actually resolve the use of the POV tag. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not about winning. In the interests of heading off a revert war, I've submitted this issue for third-opinion resolution. Geoff NoNick (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks TransporterMan for the third opinion. I'm looking forward to a discussion with Netherzone about specifically how the article can be improved to satisfy the NPOV standard so that the POV tag can be removed and the article upgraded to B-class. In the absence of any such discussion, I'll submit a request for comments so that a consensus can be achieved from a broad set of editors. Geoff NoNick (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The article relies heavily on news media sources and does not take into consideration deep scholarship on the event/subject. The article in general is poorly referenced/sourced – entire paragraphs are uncited. Not nearly a B-quality article. Additionally, is the online Prezi slideshow (which seems to be a student presentation), considered a reliable source? There are many good references that could be added. If one does a Google Book, Google Scholar, JSTOR, or HighBeam search, there are numerous books and peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject, however these need to be read first - and that takes time. Citations and important information was removed without clear justification or rationale. Assuming good faith, this probably was done to clean up the article, but these edits did not rectify the POV issues. Removal of tags is not a race to the finish line. Article improvement is a process. Respectfully, I do not have to follow Mr. NoNick’s subjective timeline, and do not have to respond “within a week”. Nor am I remotely interested in “winning” anything whatsoever, or “revert warring” as he suggests. It is unfounded to jump to these conclusions. I’m simply an editor interested in thoughtfully improving the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there are many ways in which this article could be improved, and my mention of resolving the POV issue as a step towards achieving B-class status was a reference to a comment made a decade (!) ago to that effect. To return to the question at hand: what about this article do you feel warrants the current use of the POV tag? It seems there are only two editors working on this article at the moment: one of them (me) doesn't see a violation of any of Wikipedia's NPOV policy in it, and the other (you) refuses to make any specific POV claim that would permit the article to be improved. Your thoughtful input on this matter has been sought time and again. Geoff NoNick (talk) 07:25, 26 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)


 * Good points all - thanks for the input. I'll see how I can address them in the article, though the "ambiguity" issues you highlighted don't appear to reflect an NPOV guiideline: " Avoid ambiguous terms, language or references that need clarification" doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia guideline related to NPOV (though is obviously a good practice unrelated to the POV tag).


 * I'm sorry that you perceived hostility on my part in this discussion, though I think that if you look over the exchange of comments what you'll find is that your own posts tended to escalate that tone and that mine tended to either respond in kind or (when I was able) to de-escalate it. That was certainly my perspective. And please, call me Geoff: "Mr NoNick" is my father.


 * Trying to read into the matter, my sense is that your concern is that removal of the POV tag could be perceived as a general endorsement for the overall quality of the article. I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of ways that the article could be improved, but not all (or even most) of them relate to POV and there are other applicable tags that can be used to signal other issues. Geoff NoNick (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Geoff. Glad we are moving forward in the spirit of civility. Ambiguous language lacks precision and is linked to POV because it can introduce bias. Useful information here: Manual of Style/Words to watch def. worth a read. Also a bit here Ambiguous words and the importance of accurate wording to convey an informative, balanced and truthful meaning. Netherzone (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

History and Crisis
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sûreté du Québec Flag.svg

Second fatality?
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)

300
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.
 * So say we all brother, so say we all... haha OldManRivers 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how you look at it. In a historical context, the Persians had significant advances in technology, had more egalitarian rule and opportunity, and in fact offered the Greeks the chance to willingly join them, which can be summed up in this not-so-educational but still informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naPUYTKEMc8, so I guess it can be argued that the "colonists" are indeed more like the Persians. But given that the mohawks chose to fight against a smaller force of more skilful group of individuals (the roughly 800 Canadian soldiers, including support), and that the only tactic used by the mohawks to any success was to rely on overwhelming numbers and surrounding their opponents (as they did to the SQ), all while retreating as soon as they realised the battle was not in their favour rather than standing their ground once the Canadian government gave the troops permission to press forward. Wouldn't that make the "colonist" the Spartans and the natives the Persians in this example? Additionally, the Spartans were defeated as a result of a disgruntled individual in their own camp selling them out in favour of the Persians, which is awfully reminiscent of certain Canadians siding with the natives in recent events. Wped87 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Terrorists
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
 * Actually, they do. Both the CBC and Historica refer to them as warriors. As for your counter argument, will you be citing yourself as a reference? - TheMightyQuill 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why is it that you keep removing the link to Mohawk Nation? I'm going to assume in good faith that you have a reason, rather than just venting your anger through vandalism. - TheMightyQuill 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Brad Laruque was an economics student, he was not a "warrior". The wikipedia "warrior" page says "A warrior is a person habitually engaged in warfare" As far as I know the Mohawks haven't been at war with anybody for for well over a century. Julian Watson 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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...
 * Random House Unabridged: 2. a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.
 * American Heritage: 2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict

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)
 * I will add that these warrior societies have been apart of Haudenosaunee culture for centuries. The definition is clearly expansive and isn't easy to tight down, but as an organization (The Warrior Societies), warrior would be a correct term for these individuals.  There are numerous Warrior Societies across Canada from the East Coast to the West Coast (Although the West Coast Warriors Society is not defunct and disbanded years ago).  Doesn't the Armed Forces Handbook on Counter Insurgency call them Warriors too?  OldManRivers 19:15, 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)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree. He used the term and the Warrior Societies which OldManRivers referred to are pretty secure in their use of the term. The media used the term. You object to the term claiming it's racist, but you label indigenous people defending what they see as their territory "terrorists" ? You've got to be joking. The man in the picture carried a weapon, acted alongside a group of people who were using physical force to defend land, and are connected with a culture which has valued warriors since time immemorial. No, if he were white, he wouldn't be called a warrior because white-canadian culture doesn't include warrior societies. If he were white, he probably wouldn't call himself a warrior and the media wouldn't call him a warrior, but he's Haudenosaunee, so they do. - TheMightyQuill 00:13, 10 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)


 * You got sources to back up these claims buddy? I could say the exact same thing except that the majority of Indigenous in Canada supported the Warriors at Oka in the uprising that created a breaking point for Indigenous resistance across Canada.  This is largely your own personal point of view on what the so called Oka Crisis is and who these men are.  Wikipedia is about neutrality in an encyclopedic manner.  The traditional governance of the Haudenosaunee support enormously the warriors societies and are governed by the clan mother and not the originally imposed band council system.  Terrorists to who?  Gangs to who?  The warriors societies at Kanastake drove out all the drug dealers in their nation.  But please by all means, bring sources for you wild claims.  OldManRivers 04:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Julian, while I'm sure you consider your mother and grandparents reliable sources, forgive me if I am a little skeptical. To my knowledge, the Triads and Hells Angels do not receive the same respect from either the media, or from academics (like Taiaiake Alfred or Lana Lowe). You believe the Canadian media is bigoted, and I happen to agree with you, only maybe from the opposite side. Personally, I find your comment that residential schools were set up to pull indigenous people "out of the stone age" incredibly offensive, and I'm willing to bet a majority of indigenous people would agree with me, pardon me if I suspect your bias, despite your birthplace and family. Since we clearly have opposite points of view, we need to work with sources, as OldManRivers has pointed out. You've already gone through wikipedia and removed a number of admittedly suspect references and sources (Kevin Annett), but simply claiming media bias doesn't exempt you from Verifiability. - TheMightyQuill 08:11, 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.
 * Cool, not only are the majority of your claims wrong to varying degrees, I don't see how is that relevant to the topic at hand? Wped87 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"murder"
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)
 * The IP user tried to reverse that claiming that the article "clearly states it was murder"....it says no such thing...and it's news to me that the news that came out DURING the crisis that it was an SQ bullet was later revisedd to claim it came from Mohawk positions....that's not what the original autopsy and news reports said; the cite is also not the Hamilton Spectator but a cite from thestar.com. Beware of IP edits to this page and other politically loaded pages.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * that inquest smacks of a coverup to me, and a whitewash; I was watching live when all this went down, and watched the whole crisis on Newsworld several hours a day, until the military shut down the broadcast and replacded the live feed with talking head coverage vetted by military censors....that's amatter of historic record, should be in the article, but I've never had time to find a cite for it; I know what I saw.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW that edit's whois traces to Switzerland, and is part of a "suspect corporate layer" or whatever...Skookum1 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweet mother of... Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:29, 23 July 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)

2 July 2020 Major Edits
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)


 * I agree with most of the changes I can see.
 * Speculated numbers should not be used, espessially since they are without reference.
 * Opinion blogs and school presentations should not be referenced as credible resources, but we can use some of the sources that they link to and reference.
 * I'm not sure on the referencing protocols, but I think you should have referenced all the changes even if it feels redundant (I think all of the unreferenced changes I saw contain the same information in other areas of the article : : which already have references).
 * Although only 800 soldiers were deployed, there were ~4000 on standby so we should include that in the info box with a clear distinction between those at the ready and those who were actually present.
 * Also for the info box, you don't need to mention when each group arrived as that is already in the main article, except for maybe when the army arrived since they replaced the majority of the police there rather than adding to the numbers already present.
 * Something I think should be changed is the listed leader in the info box for Quebec. I think it should be listed as the Quebec Premier as the entirety of operation and negotiations in this instance were the responsibility of his office and listing the officer in charge of just the portion of the operations that involves the army doesn't provide show the political nature or the scale of the crisis.
 * Blursed Boi (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs to be moved to the bottom of the list of sections in Talk so that people will actually see it. It got placed at the top which is where the oldest comments are supposed to be. Please move it so people read it and can comment. Netherzone (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, and don't quite know why the above commenter couldn't have done that on their own. James Hyett (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohawk Civil War redirects here...
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 beSkookum1 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Skookum1. Hadn't seen this comment before but you're absolutely correct. GoogleNews: akwesasne+mohawk+casino 1989-1990. It is largely unrelated to this particular golf course land crisis and I think the redirect should be deleted until an article is created. Double Blue  (Talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very old discussion, but I'm adding to it here so there's a record that I brought this up at Redirects for Discussion, and have tracked down some sources related to the events at Akwesasne:
 * James Hyett (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * James Hyett (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * James Hyett (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * James Hyett (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Really a military conflict?
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 rather than. 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. James Hyett (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The military was deployed against the Kanien'keha:ka by the occupier government, just as in ''Las Malvinas or occupied Ireland. Also, from the Kanien'keha:ka perspective, they are a nation rather than mere "Canadians"; that makes this a military conflict between two nations, as in The Blitz. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Really the two infoboxes are just different ways of presenting the same information. I don't think we have a infobox land dispute, but it is probably best to be consistent among all of these related articles. This should probably be a discussion at WT:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need for individual editors to be "consistent" in every detail of articles, only accurate. As I stated above, the Kanien'keha:ka do not recognize the authority of Canada over them any more than the Irish in the northern part of that island recognize that of the Queen of England. The frame of "land dispute" -- well-trod in mainstream media -- is reductionist and inherently POV, as it concedes that the land belongs to Canada; at the risk of belabouring the point, the Kanien'keha:ka do not accept this (also, quite different to media treatment of the Irish struggle!). Moreover, while the infobox classification is predicated on the involved parties, the article is about the event: An armed conflict between, per the Kanien'keha:ka perspective, two nations. Notably, the Kanien:keha'ka DO recognize Canada as a nation in the legal sense -- the successor state to the British Crown, with whom the Kanien:keha'ka originally concluded treaties involving land that Canada now claims (!) as their own -- but Canada (obviously) does not accord the same respect in kind, which makes the telegraphing of such claims highly problematic. Even excluding those points as POV and/or rejecting Kanien'keha:ka claims of sovereignty (which admittedly do not accord with "international law", including such gems as "doctrine of discovery", the latter still being cited as case law in recent times), whatever one's view of the Mohawk Warrior Society is -- or the paramilitary Sûreté du Québec, for that matter -- the Canadian Forces are unambiguously military, and were directed by the feds directly via Canada's top general. Finally, if you believe that there's no real difference between the two templates, why comment on this at all?.2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, we're off to a bad start here, but I assure you I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree. My only point is about the layout of the two templates: infobox military conflict has sections for describing the name of a conflict and which broader conflict it is associated with, the date and location, the major parties, key individuals on each side of the conflict, the numbers of participants, and the numbers of casualties. Infobox civil conflict, on the other hand, has sections for describing the name of a conflict and which broader conflict it is associated with, the date and location, the major parties, key individuals on each side of the conflict, the numbers of participants, and the numbers of casualties. The difference between the two are that the military one uses "belligerents" while the civil template uses "parties to the conflict", and they use different font sizes, otherwise all the same information is presented, in the same order. To my mind that means it doesn't matter which one is used, as long as the information is correct. I somewhat prefer "military conflict" for this, because as you pointed out this is a nation-to-nation conflict no matter what some asshole golf course developer says, and the provincial police forces absolutely are paramilitary more than they are civilian police (and the actual Canadian military was deployed for this). But readers don't see the names of the templates involved, so it doesn't matter which one we use as long as the information is correct. I suggested it should be a broader discussion because all of these "land disputes" are basically the same: Indigenous nations with unceded or treaty rights to traditional territories defending their interests against the colonial Canadian government and their "police" militias (usually the RCMP, but the OPP and SQ fill that role in some places), and so it stands to reason that, for one, an article could be written on the broader dispute (and probably has been), and that the same infobox should be standardized across all of them. But of course we can use whichever is most appropriate on this article without considering the others. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling me "IP" has a special pejorative flavour. Do better, "IV". 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not intended. As you pointed out, ISPs (and IPv6 providers in particular) rotate end-users' IP addresses often frequently and randomly, and as such it's nigh-on impossible to address an IPv6 editor by their IP address (because it's likely to have changed before they receive the notification). A sitewide convention of addressing editors without accounts as "IP" or "anon" is pretty generally accepted, and not meant to be pejorative. I'm happy to address you whatever way you like, but you'll have to tell me what that is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

POV dispute
Okay,, 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)
 * You pulled the POV tag when there exists consensus to maintain it on the sole basis of it being "stale", but didn't so much as check the diff from the day said discussion began? As you can see, substantive changes are very few (none, in fact, to my eye). Maybe you should start with reading through the diff, the discussion and the article itself, to see if you think a POV tag should remain appended or not. As is, your justification for deleting it was insufficient. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you restored this POV tag back in 2017 and at the time it seemed to be a rehash of a 2014 discussion, but I can't find that one. Could you comment here on what still needs to be corrected? There does seem to have been some significant editing in July of this year, and I can't follow what the original dispute was to determine if there's still work to be done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out, . My sense at the time was that the article is written primarily from the dominant culture's point of view (Canadian gov't, military, developers, etc), and that it could be improved by including more of the Mohawk voice. I continue to be of that mind. It would be really excellent if some editors from Kaʼnehsatà꞉ke, Ahkwesásne, Kahnawake, and other communities could contribute. Perhaps the IP is? I still don't feel that the article has achieved balance, and think the tag should remain even though the prior discussion went stale. I don't think there is a limit on how long a tag can remain. It seems important that readers of the encyclopedia know that the current version may not be the "final word." Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a European-descended squatter on traditional Algonquin Anishinaabe territory, albeit born in Tio'tia:ke, but I agree 1.) that POV tags don't come with an expiry date, 2.) that those changes in the diff I linked don't seem to have addressed many or any POV issues, and 3.) that, as Geoff came to believe, removing the POV tag could mistakenly be construed as indicating that the article's general quality has markedly improved. Oh, and FWIW, I've added a section to this talk page about what I see as blatant POV omissions (indeed, deletions) from this article. Contributions thereto, and perhaps the article edits themselves, are welcomed. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's correct that cleanup tags don't have a expiry date, however if it's been a long time since they were placed and the article has undergoing substantial editing since then and it's not obvious to the editor that there is still a problem, then it's not unreasonable to remove them. If editors disagree and feel issues remain, they can add them back. But as always editors do need to be able to point to specific issues if challenged on the tags. While the article being excessively biased in favour of the dominant culture's POV is helpful, it's probably not sufficient to justify a tag if there's dispute or it remains non-obvious to editors, without further elaboration. In particular specific examples of what seems to be missing, biased or covered in excessive detail. The issue raised below is an example of the sort of thing that helps justify a tag. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No offence, but...where did you pull that out of? The template maintenance page is explicit as to when to, and when not to, yoink a tag. #2 and #3 of "When not to remove" apply here. I would submit additionally that #1 applied to Moxy and, with due respect, #5 may well also apply. The fact that there's a discussion about the tag on this page at all justifies its placement; two previous such discussions from 2017 and from 2014 were still on this page until the day I edited the article (bot-archived shortly thereafter; hmm...). Hopefully future tag-yoinkers will see this and seek to improve the article instead, or are reminded of it by other editors who replace the tag (and maybe also seek to improve the article). In sum, the tag must stay unless and until consensus is achieved. Roolz is roolz.  2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:A522:DBB2:C09A:4F19 (talk) 09:29, 8 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)

POV: Joe Armstrong and Waneek Horn-Miller
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)
 * You're more familiar with the article history than I am. Are these two things material that was removed at some point that we could restore, or are we writing from scratch? Waneek Horn-Miller's stabbing is mentioned with a reference and details in her article, we can probably just use that. Her article is linked as a see-also, with no context, we can do better than that I'm sure. As for Armstrong's death, it's common for well-meaning editors to omit info that's based on the perspective of one side of a conflict, but that's not how neutrality is supposed to work. And that also doesn't seem to be the case:
 * This statement by the Canadian government on the 30th anniversary (this year) clearly labels Armstrong a victim of the conflict.
 * This Radio-Canada article (in French) is a detailed account of the attack and Armstrong's heart attack the next day, not a week later. They're also clearly describing him as a victim of the conflict.
 * Mashable's account (2016) describes the incident: "During one of these riots, Mohawk elder Joe Armstrong, 71, was struck by a large rock. He died a week later." That would be a weak source for saying he died as a result of the conflict, but we have better sources.
 * Kind of off-topic but related: the "Crisis" section is quite long, and ought to be split up with subheadings. Radio-Canada refers to the stoning riot as "L'attaque de Whiskey Trench", this (in English of course) ought to be one of those subheadings. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to adding this content to the article, along with associated reliable sources. It would be an improvement. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems clear from the sourcing that both of these belong. If these were removed, feel free to add them back unless they were removed for copyvio reasons (these really should be revdeleted but I'm sure many cases haven't been), or just write next text. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did add some short text about both this afternoon, but then had to run. Feel free to add to or modify my text, of course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, sourcing of refs must be scrupulous. The Radio-Canada piece which states "next day" says that's when he collapsed in the woods, and goes on to state that he was on life support in Sainte-Agathe until 2 September 1990, five days later. The same article also states that the vehicle Armstrong travelled in had the windshield smashed with a rock, but also that both the Quebec provincial police and Joe Norton denied that Armstrong was hit with a rock; this doesn't accord with The Gazette's 2015 article or others in the French-language media, but this could just be a case of telegraphing other (mis)reporting. Without access to the contemporary reports, or at least testimonies from the family, it's hard to say definitively (enough for Wikipedia). Nevertheless, whether it was a rock hitting Armstrong in the chest or the mental wounds done him by the assembled lynch mob, it would be very callous to say that the rock attack and the heart attack are unrelated (though I expect some future eds. will say just that). It's tempting to use the Marc Miller statement given how unequivocal he sounds, but a politician's pandering speech is not a reliable source as there is no penalty for exaggeration in Parliament. This is why I mostly don't bother editing WP: Common sense flies out the window in defence of the status quo, even with well-meaning editors. You're definitely right that the article should be broken down into more sections though, so that ought to be a primary aim. Ouf.  2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:6DBD:4785:A2EB:EEAD (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)