Talk:Oka Crisis

Resources

There's some good detailed info at the band council's web site. Seems to be largely NPOV. — Pburka 1 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

What is the source for the "playful" water balloon fight and the references to the Mohawks breaking their guns, throwing them into septic tanks, and burning tobacco before they walked home?

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

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 {{Infobox military conflict}} rather than {{Infobox civil conflict}}. The military was only called on in the last few weeks of the conflict, and it seems to me that Oka has much more in common with the two articles I've linked above (and Ipperwash Crisis, which incidentally has no infobox) than with, for instance, the Falklands War or The Blitz, or even The Troubles (to use a somewhat contemporaneous example). I think the infobox should be changed to be {{Infobox civil conflict}}. James Hyett (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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. (Personal attack removed) 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)

POV dispute

Okay, 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C, what information in the article is not neutral, and what do you propose to do to fix it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Netherzone: 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, @Ivanvector:. 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 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C 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)

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)