Jump to content

Talk:North-West Rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This sentence doesn't seem to work: Despite some notable early victories every body turned in to a newt shriveled up and died. Can someone check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.193 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to organize a battles campaign/category for the Rebellion? I believe we've completed all the major battles:

Battle of Duck Lake
Battle of Fish Creek
Battle of Cut Knife
Battle of Batoche
Battle of Frenchman's Butte

- Albrecht 23:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recently rounded out the list with Fort Pitt and Loon Lake. I'm very pleased with the way the NW Rebellion campaign structure has taken shape thanks to the productive harmony of independent efforts. Albrecht 20:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the pieces are coming together, but the article itself still needs much work to weave together the political and military elements. My intention has always been to turn my attention to this, but only now do I feel like I'm recovering from the marathon effort to get Louis Riel into shape. Perhaps its time to start work on this article in ernest, and aim for featured status in a month or two... Are you up for such a collaboration? Fawcett5 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


foundering -> floundering? 19:58, 11 Feb 2005 Chrisbolt

"Founder" means to fill with water and sink. It is the correct metaphor in this context. Indefatigable 14:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"In 1884 the Metis asked Louis Riel to return from the United States, where he had fled after the Red River Rebellion, "

Wasn't Riel exiled? Once you're exiled and chose to abide by the exile, you're not really fleeing anymore. Right?

Answer. Not according to what I read. Louis Riel sought sanctuary in the United States. At that date Canada and the United States did not have a mutual extradition treaty. Indeed the idea of legal extradition may not have existed.

From what I remember Louis Riel feared for his life. While his goal of creating Manitoba had been successful, Manitoba had been literally politically hi-jacked by the numerous settlers. There were a lot of angry people on both sides of the Metis issue.

Riel fled specifically because of the execution of a white settler named Thomas Scott suring the successful Red River Rebellion. Justifiably Riel feared retribution. The center of legal power emanated from what was Upper Canada.

People mostly Protestants were understandably outraged. Many injustices existed during that time including a rather creative application of capital punishment. Technically Riel had every legal right to approve the execution of Scott since his committee was the government of Manitoba at the time. Dressing this tragic episode appears the spector of religious conflict. Scott was an Orangeman, a Protestant. Riel was Metis, which is First Nations/French Canadian/Scottish and Catholic. The two were polar opposites.

The military force sent out to enforce Canadian sovereignty would have arrested Riel. And since Riel knew that political force grew out of the barrel of the gun, he did not expect a fair trial as the prosecutors and judges were British, and Protestant. Riel had conceded Manitoba to the Canadian federal government's national sovereignty. Wisely he fled.

In today's judicial system Louis Riel would have recieved no more than a minimal manslaughter charge and civil court accountability to Scott's family. At that time, the Canadian judicial system provided no balance as proven by his trial and execution.

I have noticed that the Wikipedia editors prefer the use of the North-West Rebellion. The more colloquial name is "the Riel Rebellion". The slang name carries far more impact with Canadians and is usually associated with the latter rebellion.

Canadians are usually shocked by the fact that indeed Louis Riel must be considered one of the most important founding fathers of Canada. He should be considered a Father of Confederation warts and all. (Author?)

(I don't know how to do it properly, nor do I know very well how to edit in Wikipedia, or I would make changes): Riel was exiled for five years beginning in 1870, though he returned to Canada several times during the five years. When the exile period was up, he chose to remain in the U.S., becoming a schoolteacher in Montana. I don't think any of these North-West Rebellion articles is very good. There are quite a number of factual errors and lack of context. Rod Macleod and I wrote the standard text about the rebellion, "Prairie Fire: the 1885 North-West Rebellion." If anyone is interested, I can be contacted at yeoldepoges@hotmail.com. 13:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Bob Beal, Sept. 22, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Beal (talk • contribs)
[edit]

The external link is dead and I am removing it. The link was http://web.mala.bc.ca/davies/letters.images/W.F.Stewart/collection.page.htm . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.182.204 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looting of Battleford

[edit]

Proposed merger of Looting of Battleford into the history section of Battleford, Saskatchewan please comment if you have an opinion one way or t'other. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA

[edit]

I read somewhere that the United States offered to help riel but he declined is this true? Or was it the Red River Rebellion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.25.63 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion

[edit]

Why is the term "Dominion of Canada" used repeatedly in this article? Isn't "Canada" sufficiently descriptive? fishhead64 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominion of Canada" was the accepted term until the 1960s I do believe, and then was legally changed to "Canada" with the Canada Act of 1982. Canada was the first of the 'Dominions' or autonomous colonies that gained a measure of independence from Britain until becoming full partners with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. So anytime from 1867 to 1931 it is fair to use the term 'Dominion of Canada' McMuff (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unnecessarily clunky, and contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Therefore, it should be removed. fishhead64 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions say "If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used". In a historical context, the title "Dominion of Canada" is still valid. Therefore, it does not contradict Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) McMuff (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That naming convention wouldn't really apply here because the Dominion of Canada and Canada are the same place with the same English name, simply Canada. It's not the same as, say, Upper and Lower Canada, or a place like Biafra for example. "Dominion of Canada" was an official long form name, but we don't need to use it every time. If it is absolutely necessary (and I don't agree that it is), we can use "Dominion of Canada" the first time, and "Canada" thereafter. Similarly, we don't say "Louis Riel" every time, "Riel" is sufficient. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't have to be used every time, but the edit eliminated all use of the word 'Dominion' from the article. I think that the use of the title 'Dominion of Canada', to reflect the semi-independent federation of British territories that was Canada in 1885, just once is a good way to disambiguate the 1867-1931 use of 'Canada' from say 'Canada' as a colony in New France, The Province of Canada of 1841-1867, or even our current setup. McMuff (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is disingenuous to claim that there would be any ambiguity concerning the entity in question. The nation called Canada came into being in 1867, and there is no reason for the article to allude, in even an oblique way, to the political evolution of that entity's self-government. As far as I know, Canada is as much a "dominion" now as it was in 1867, although the preferred contemporary nomenclature is Commonwealth realm. fishhead64 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Canada is described as being a Dominion in the preamble of the BNA Act. However the sense of Canada being a 'Dominion' in terms of it's relationship to Britain ceased to be true after the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and especially true after declaring war on Germany on its own in 1939. The use of the term 'Dominion of Canada' was used in government documents until the 1950s, and the Constituion Act of 1982 just mentions Canada, but still has the BNA Act as a part. I just thought the term 'Dominion of Canada' was a fair description of pre-1931 Canada, reflecting both naming practices and its relation to the Crown, and that's it. I resent the accusation of bad faith.McMuff (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never made an accusation of bad faith, and I resent the accusation that I did ;) fishhead64 (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I came here to refresh my recollection of the North-West or Riel's Rebellion and, on reading, am struck by the incredible lack of sourcing for a fairly detailed article and one that is important to Canadian history. The Background section doesn't have a single citation until a third of the way through its 5th paragraph and no paragraph beyond that contains any citation until one reaches the Legacy section. (None of the texts regarding the battles/campaigns are sourced.)

And, from the tone and tenor, much of its first 4 paragraphs in the Background are either copy-pasted from somewhere or are originally written - the 3rd paragraph in particular lacks encyclopedic style:

"It is important to note this district expanded mostly to the north and doubled it's size during 1818 to 1889- it was a growing area that expanded. This is important to understand the dynamics of the Rebbellion in this area, as this area was already defining itself by an initial, legally tolerated expansion. Censorship being what it is, perhaps the pioneers simply wanted a third expansion and were denied- leading to the rebellion that occured. Would it be unusual to question if the conflict could have been avoided? The first expansion was legally successful. The first expansion didn't cause Ottawa to send in troops. History of this place and era are very obscure- a lot happened in a very short time that is missed in modern understanding." (emphasis added) Irish Melkite (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those non-encyclopedic passages that were added on Sept. 1. But the bigger issue of shortage of references still needs to be addressed. Indefatigable (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

The Legacy section (which is very well-sourced - the only section of which that can be said) is poorly named. It is essentially a list, written in prose form to accommodate a bit of explanation here and there, of historical sites, monuments, memorials. That is not what a legacy is. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Belligerents"

[edit]

This section and the article's heading table state the belligerents to have been Canada, Provisional Government of Saskatchewan, Métis and Cree–Assiniboine. The Province of Saskatchewan did not exist for another 20 years. Surely that belligerent should be identified as the North-West Territories. Masalai (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan in the Provisional Government of Saskatchewan must mean the old District of Saskatchewan (1882-1905) of the North-West Territories. The page could use a better map of this old district for example the following map at; Map of Battle Sites. Kayoty (talk) .Kayoty 07:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North-West Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in Memorials section lacks clarity

[edit]

This ("the Poundmaker Historical Centre and Big Bear monument erected by cairn erected by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada") part of the last paragraph of the Memorials section is not clear to me. I can't correct it because I'm not sure what it is supposed to say. Even assuming it says exactly what it means to say, the style is clumsy and needs improvement. Jergas (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on North-West Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague pair of sentences

[edit]

This article says:

In 1884, the Métis (including the Anglo-Métis) asked Louis Riel to return from the United States, where he had fled after the Red River Rebellion, to appeal to the government on their behalf.[10] The government gave a vague response.

The person who was asked for something was Louis Riel; it was not the government. How is it that the government, rather than Louis Riel, is reported to be resonding to the request? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellion or resistance

[edit]

LaMétis, Mako001, Laughing Owl YYC - I'm creating a thread here so that discussion can take place about whether the word rebellion or resistance should be used for these events. Do please note that the relevant guidance is at WP:COMMONNAME - we use the most commonly used and widely understood term, although alternate names can be given as well. What matters is the sources - not our own ideas about what it ought to be called. Girth Summit (blether) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate this and understand the guidance. In this case, the Government of Canada itself uses the term "North-West Resistance" https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/metis/Pages/Thematic-guide-Louis-Riel-Page-3.aspx Both North-West Resistance and Rebellion are commonly used, the Métis take issue with the characterization of rebellion in that they were not Canadian citizens and the land they were on was ceded to Canada but not part of the Canadian Confederation until 1905. LaMétis (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMétis: If you don't mind, I'll respond to your comment on my talk page here instead.
You raised some points there which certainly bear consideration, and it may do to repeat them here.
Anyway, to give this some scope, the consequences of this discussion will include consensus on the correct title of this article as well as how it is referred to throughout.
The real question here is not if the COMMONNAME will change, but when, as it seems inevitable that it will eventually do so. However, the important thing here is, has it already changed? If it hasn't, then it should be referred to as "Rebellion" until such time as the COMMONNAME changes.
Simply because the Government of Canada refers to it as "resistance" doesn't change the COMMONNAME, as the Ukrainian Government was referring to Kyiv by its present name for years before the COMMONNAME changed to Kyiv around 2014.
What you need to show here is that a majority of sources are referring to it as a "Resistance (movement)" rather than a "rebellion".
Even if you do find a COMMONNAME (now referring to COMMONNAME's in general) to be somewhat offensive or problematic, unfortunately, you can't convince Wikipedia to change it because "we don't lead, we follow", and until society decides otherwise, a COMMONNAME will remain as it is. As I said earlier, the question is, has society decided otherwise?
I don't really have any opinion on this, and prefer to remain neutral on this sort of thing. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just performed a couple of Google Scholar searches for the two phrases: "North-West Resistance" gets 218 hits, and "North-West Rebellion" gets 1,770. I haven't performed an in-depth analysis of the quality of the sources, but on the face of it 'rebellion' seems to get far more usage. It might be rather anachronistic, and we should probably make mention of the alternative name in the article, but on the face of it I think our rebellion is a better choice as far as our content guidelines are concerned. Girth Summit (blether) 12:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that the preponderance of history has referred to this as the North-West Rebellion, the shift in thinking and alternative references accelerated in the last two decades. Books written as recently as 2013 still refer to this as a rebellion. The Canadian Encyclopedia edited their entry just last year. So given the criteria used for titles, I think an alternate name mention would be a great start. LaMétis (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a citation for the encyclopedia, that and the government website above would definitely justify mentioning and alternative name, I'd support that strongly. To go for a wholesale move, you'd need to show that scholarship has already embraced the change - we follow, we don't lead. If you went through those Google Scholar hits though, and you could show that the majority of sources published in the last ten years have been using 'resistance', I could support a full change. Girth Summit (blether) 18:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Canadian Encyclopediacitation - North-West Resistance is now the preferred title, Rebellion is the alternate. The Government of Canada Library and Archives site only uses the title North-West Resistance. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica, that still refers to the Battle of Seven Oaks as the "Seven Oaks Massacre," uses North-West Resistance as an alternate title. The University of Saskatchewan website refers to it as the North-West Resistance. The University of Manitoba refers to it as the North-West Resistance. The problem with looking at the sources in the last decade is that several pages refer to titles or works from the late 1800s/early 1900s. Case in point, the Art Canada Institute page created last year comes up in the search with a reference to a monument titled "North West Rebellion Monument," created in 1894. But yes, I believe that adding an alternate title is warranted now. LaMétis (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the Art Canada Institute addresses the controversy about the monument's title: "Canadians at the time largely viewed the government’s response to the uprising as necessary to maintain law and order in Western Canada. That perspective has since changed, and it is now widely acknowledged that the conflict denied Métis sovereignty; the events are now commonly referred to as the Northwest Resistance." LaMétis (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did an analysis of Google Scholar search results for both "North-West Rebellion" (512 results) and "North-West Resistance" (136 results) from 2013 to 2022. Of the "North-West Rebellion" results, I found that at least 165 of the results were citations or quotes from prior work and/or online versions or republications of older printed documents. So if we consider those to be exceptions, that still leaves 347 probable results for the use of the term Rebellion (many of the results were abstracts for longer work that I was unable to see). I will say that several of the documents that I could see that used the term Rebellion were informed by older documents that were cited. I still considered those to be current usage unless it was information directly attributed or only a citation of the previous work. I'm happy to share the data I compiled as well.
So, at 347 to 136, I'd like to move forward with "North-West Resistance" as an alternate title. Please let me know if you agree, thanks. LaMétis (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, yes. I'd suggest adding a note into the first sentence, along the lines of 'sometimes referred to as the North-West Resistance', with citations to a couple of these sources. Girth Summit (blether) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed all instances of rebellion to resistance. This was not a rebellion. Period. Jasonkoston (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just change the article body and leave the title as is. And while I agree with the wider sentiments espoused by those that would use Resistance, it is important to keep in mind Wikipedia's naming conventions are largely guided based off of WP:COMMONNAME principles. And as noted in the above discussion, the Rebellion moniker is still widely used. Leventio (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so what do we need to do to change it? If we're all in agreement that it wasn't a rebellion, let's change it. What do I need to do? Jasonkoston (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I do feel that participants in the last discussion mostly agreed on semantics (as in what constitutes a rebellion), the issue with regards to the article isn't a semantical one. Regardless of whether or not we agree on a semantical level, it doesn't change how Wikipedia's naming conventions are largely determined by WP:COMMONNAME (this stemming from the idea that Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of published sources). And in that regard, there isn't much we can do except wait for public discourse to "catch up".
In saying that though, until that period comes, we could expand the article to include a new section that went goes into detail about the monikers used to refer to the conflict (several other conflicts with controversial/multiple names do this as well). Leventio (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a nomenclature section. Feel free to expand on it. Leventio (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North-West_Rebellion&oldid=1207948236"