Talk:Grand River land dispute/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Grand River land dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

My edits

Just to let everyone know, I've added a Historical Background section to the article using some of the new links I've provided at the bottom of the page (mostly the CBC one). I'm thinking of adding a section covering the timeline of events, which should help organize it better and set it up for when this gets resolved and no longer is a current event. Oh, and a friend supplied me with several of the links that I added. --JFred 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

nice work. thanks. -- TheMightyQuill 11:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Added another section highlighting the events of the protest itself. Also cleaned up the info section to avoid duplication of info with both history and timeline section. Hope y'all like it. --JFred 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I put in in a better timeline format. Wuffyz 5:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy and References

Sorry folks about my poor form.

Just getting it typed in was a task and I omitted my references.

My information was from the Wednesday May 10 Brantford Expositor. It was an open letter to OPP Commissioner Gwen M. Boniface, as well as the Premier and the County and the Ministry of Indian Affairs.

As far as I know the letter was also copied and published in the Hamilton Spectator, The Toronto Star, and Globe and Mail.

The information contained in the letter is sourced as the actual legal document surrendering the lands: The Surrender of 18th of March.

CanadianPhaedrus 20:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Wonderful, thank you. I'll try and find the internet version of the article. --JFred 02:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on. I also have the paper still on hand so if you cant find it I could scan it and upload it somewhere?

I dont think that would violate the "original research" or anything like that because its just showing the information... I guess some copyright issues may apply..

I'll look into it

CanadianPhaedrus 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Canadian Phaedrus

removal of barricades?

right now there seems to be conflicting reports about wether the baricades are down compleatly or wether they've been scaled back. So, I went with the most conservative story (from the status quo). Of course this can alwase be changed as more info come avalible...Mike McGregor (Can) 21:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton Spectator has gone into more detail in the May 17th issue. --JFred 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

dispute tag

I have put a disputed tag on the historical background section since it seems to lack and NPOV sources whatsoever DRCarroll 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It all came from the CBC links provided in the External Links section, plus what Tootsmc provided. If you can find other info that gives a different perspective, feel free to incorporate it. --JFred 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one important thing that the article is missing. The Haldimand Proclemation that this dispute is based on covers all land within 6 miles of the Grand River. If this claim is valid, then it includes all of Caledonia plus Kitchener, Ontario, Waterloo, Ontario and several smaller cities. That covers the homes of well over a half million people. Plus the headquarters of Research in Motion. But it's hard to get into things like that without breaking the NPOV. --Wmil 14:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the orginal land was sold off by the Six Nations themselves. The dispute is currently over land in Caledonia (the Plank Road lands), and no where else within the Proclamation, though there was a little info night the Six Nations had at the Brantford Charity Casino saying it occupies their land. --JFred 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional references

The Marxist-Leninist Daily has posted a number of articles on this subject at Justice for the Six Nations!. Note that any use of that information should be extra-carefully reviewed for NPOV given that source is very strongly POV. Any use should probably be framed along the lines of “Some supporters of the Six Nations blockade claimed…” —GrantNeufeld 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theories. --J Fred 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

June 9

I added more info about june 9's shananagans. can folks take a look and refine it? Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

about part of my revert... I don't know that it can be verified that the camera crew was "asked" to stop filming, as opposed to 'told' to stop filming, and then beat up when they refused. I think I put "attacked" in there the first time around because I couldn't think of another word with more neutral connotations. Thats probably where some of the problems are coming from. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But I am sure native people would have trouble with the word "attacked", and I'm sure there was talking before the "attack" occurred, I doubt it would happen without warning. The media has only reported the outcome, not what lead up to it. --J Fred 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's better, more to the point and less wordy than what I had reinstated. --J Fred 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Overly Long

Do we really need a paragraph describing what happened each day? The way this is set up discourages people from reading it. --68.149.181.145 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

that was done for important developments. I think it's the best way to orginize the article right now. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When it is no longer a current event I think it would be appropriate to clean it up a little, but I guess it's okay for now. --68.149.181.145 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just easier for people to add things when it's in this format. I think we should wait. But sometime in the future some people may need more information. I don't think that it's very Wikipedia like to put a brief outlook and an in-depth timeline in at the same time but I think maybe it would be good to have. Wuffyz 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC) /Edit on August 14 2006\

It would appear that HaltonRattlesnake changed the format. And added a picture of Caledonia from space. Wuffyz 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC) /Edit a minute later\

This article is a mess...I'll try to clean it up a little, but I'm new. --C civiero 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth Picture

Is it absolutley necessary to have this picture here? Wouldn't an old-fashiond Rand McNally style map do? Sure, you could put this picture up on the Caledonia, Ontario article, but this is about the land dispute. Wuffyz 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't very relevant and it's not very clear. --C civiero 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Erik says: I think some sort of picture would really help (11 September 2006)

Request for more information regarding the negotiations

I know that there has been a lot of activity regarding the negotiations but I don't know what. Could someone put in some more info? Wuffyz 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think for the most part, they're being held In Camera... Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Ipperwash Reference

This was in the article, above the contents overview: "This conflict is often compared to the Ipperwash Crisis of 1995, where the provincial government of the time was accused of intervening to encourage the OPP to force natives out of their occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, during which an unarmed native protester, Dudley George, was shot and killed." I removed it, for the following reasons:

-There have been many aboriginal land disputes in Canada, and it this particular standoff doesn't bear any more similarity to Ipperwash than any other dispute.

-There were no citations to support this claim.

-It only serves to make the article POV by mentioning the Dudley George incident (which is completely unrelated to this dispute) --C civiero 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the context was, and it from the manner in which it was quoted, it doesn't seem especially important to re-insert. But it is at least true that many are comparing it to Ipperwash, because: 1) Ipperwash happened recently enough for people to remember and the Ipperwash inquiry is still going on, and 2) Ipperwash also happened in Ontario and involved a natives-vs.-OPP standoff. So the comparison seems quite natural to me. --Saforrest 04:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-natives

All the times I've been down there, There's been non-natives at the Native camp in support of the Native efforts (myself included). The reason I bring this up is that the article often refers to Non-native protesters and Native protestors. should we try to find a term(s) to diffrenteniate non-native supporters of the natives and non-natives who are against the natives? (i.e. Anti-occupation protestors)? just a thought Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe refering to the "non-Native" protesters as anti-blockade protesters, since the blockade is what they are protesting? --JFred 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Anti-Blockade and Blockade. Because both sides have blockades.

But, to me anyway, the term "blockade" typically refers to the blockade the natives put up. Also, I don't think the term "anti-occupation" should be used to describe the "non-native" protesters since the natives don't look at this as an occupation. --JFred 22:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If not "non-native", would the term "residents" suffice? --JFred 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

makes sense...Mike McGregor (Can) 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed to residents. --JFred 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but some of the residents of Caledonia (native or non-native) are protesting for Six Nations. Wuffyz 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So we need two words, one for everybody who is for the natives winning the lawsuit, and one for everybody against it. Why not native sympathizers or pro-native for those for, and pro-crown for those who opposed. [Anonymous]

Why not "unsupporting residents?"38.112.87.6 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Two more pictures

I added two extra pictures. One of an occupied house and another of the Douglas Creek Estates. These were both taken driving by and through tinted windows. I will try to get better pictures from inside the occupation too. And also in these pictures, there is a slight white balance problem. Like I said, I will try to get better pictures from inside the occupation. Wuffyz 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You could probably stop and ask for permission, explaining the purpose, and no one would shoot you. These pictures are better than what's otherwise available, but my first reaction was that you took them from a car window without completely stopping the car. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, though, don't get me wrong. -- TheMightyQuill 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go to the site tomorrow, are there any particular pictures that would be usefull for the article that I should try to snap while I'm there? Mike McGregor (Can) 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, but I notice the Caledonia, Ontario article doesn't have any photos. Maybe you could take some for them. =) -- TheMightyQuill 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please upload them on Commons if you take any pictures? --Chlämens 22:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get them up Tuesday night or Wednesday. I took pictures at the entrence to Duglas Creek, toward the houses being occupied and of the counter-protest by the Crappy Tire (I think I got one of the arrests, but the exposure might be off). I took some along the river for the Caledonia article too (just the bridges and the mill(?). Mike McGregor (Can) 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the pics from the 15th. I tried to space them out a bit within the "2006 dispute" section. Someone may want to rearrange them though. I added a couple pics to the Caledonia article too... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They look great, as do the ones you uploaded to Caledonia, Ontario. Great work Mike! -- TheMightyQuill 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to upload an updated picture of the occupied house tommorow. When I took it, I didn't ask permission, nobody shot me, I don't think they have guns. I took some pictures of the non-natives trying to get through to the site on argyle street, I didn't ask permission, nobody shot me, I don't think they have guns. I also took some pictures of the police in full riot gear, I didn't ask permission, I didn't get shot, they had guns. But I will upload them tomorrow. I have dial-up. -- Wuffyz 01:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1840

Tootsmc (talk · contribs) added the following comment to the article in the timeline section on 1840:

I think that before anyone writes information in here that isn't accurate that they better do their research. http://www.sixnations.ca/plank%20road.pdf states clearly that "ON January 18, 1841, the Crown purported to take a surrender from Six Nations even though this document conatianed only 6 Chief Sidnatures and did not identify any specific lands. Immediately after the surrender, beginning on February 4, 1841, then again on July 7, 1841 and June 24, 1843, Six Nations sent petitions to the Crown disputing the surrender. After 1845, despite the clear wishes of Six Nations not to sell te land. Plank Road and surrounding lands were patented in fee simple and sold to third parties. Six Nations did not consent to any sale of the lands on or surrounding the Hamilton Port-Dover Plank Road.

I've moved this comment to the talk page and request that the folks who've been working on the timeline in the article investigate the reference, and include any claims being made by the Six Nations that contradict the current timeline in the article. —GrantNeufeld 14:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He must be a member of the Six Nations. Anyway, being the one that set up that section, I only had CBC.ca and Canada.com articles as reference. If I had the Six Nations side readily available, I would have used it. Of course, I was trying to make it sound as neutral as possible, but we all know that's not good enough for those close to the situation like Tootsmc (talk · contribs). That said, I will try to incorporate the link he/she provided into the article, unless someone beats me to it. --JFred 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated the link he provided into the wording of that section. Hope it meets NPOV standards. --JFred 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading this over, and I just felt that I needed to inform JFred (talk · contribs) than he shouldn't make assumptions about people. He has no way of knowing Tootsmc (talk · contribs) is indeed Six Nations, and has to reason in making such an irrelevant comment, worded in such a fashion ("He must be a member of the Six Nations" reads as though it is negative). Tootsmc could have provided such a link for an uncountable number of reasons, and he does not deserved to be judged for it. Also, to aid in proving my point, no, I am not Six Nations, nor am I aboriginal. This does not mean that I can't provide my opinions nor facts to back it up on this matter. Flashstorm 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Tootsmc (talk · contribs) quoted a Six Nations source, I don't think the assumption was entirely without merit. I think it is self evident that Six Nations sources would be POV.67.68.5.21 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

December 14th and 16th

Why is December 14th in the See Also section? Why are so many things "in quotations"? And why they are written as if people already knew what happend? Wuffyz 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

June 20

Can we get some references for this? Especially the gunshots / fireworks, and the speculations about secret bunkers. Joel Bastedo 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

if you go here, you can check the articles listed for the 20th. A refrence your looking for is probably there somewhere. Peace! Mike McGregor (Can) 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be really impressed if you bothered to read wikipedia's sourcing guidelines before using rubbish like this as a reference. I take it you have not previously bothered writing in a professional setting. I would throw out a paper that relied on such obviously compromised sources as this one as being lazy and without merit. What will it take before you realize you need to do broad, in depth research using unimpeachable sources? 74.56.218.173 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"occupation"

Can I suggest that perhaps a title along the lines of "Caledonia Land Dispute" or somthing similar would be more appropriate from an NPOV perspective? while at the site on saturday, I noticed that words like "re-occupation" and "reclamation" were used to describe the situation from the Six Nations protestors and they're supporters, implying (to me at least) that tey felt the term "occupation" carried a negitive connitation in this context. Great to finally see an article on this though! Mike McGregor (Can) 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes good move. -- max rspct leave a message 12:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why they made it occupation... Well you should rename it. "Caledonia land dispute" sounds good. Wuffyz 10:40, 26 Apil 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Agree. --TheMightyQuill 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The situation was that the person who originally wrote up the first stubby draft of this article titled it "Caledonia, Ontario Conflict". User:Samaritan and I discussed it a bit, and agreed that the original title was somewhat problematic, so he did a Google News search to find what seemed to be the most common media term in reference to it (per WP's "most common name" guidelines). I'm perfectly fine with a rename if the current title strikes people as POV; the intention was always to find the most neutral new title we could. Bearcat 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheMightyQuill 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yay! The name makes sense now! Wuffyz 9:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Samaritan here. :) I agree too, especially as the article expands with further background information stretching back past the current occupation. I just decapitalized it, per Wikistyle and prevailing usage; if a capitalized form seems to catch on in published sources, that might merit revisiting.

Btw, I caught an interesting short interview with Six Nations occupants' unofficial spokesperson Clyde Powless on CTV Newsnet a few days ago - at the very start he disagreed with the anchor's representation of the occurance as a "protest." It was an occupation, and that it was so, and not a "protest," was significant to him. Samaritan 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation" sounds negative to the natives, "reclaimation" negative to the non-natives. "Caledonia land dispute" is neutral. Good move! Wuffyz

Hmm, Lets look at what wikipedia itself say's about the word. "the temporary forceful occupation of a (typically governmental) symbolic building or site, as a sign of protest" Yep this looks like an occupation after all. The proper use of a word has nothing to do with NPV. BUT "sounds negative to the natives" now that does not sound very neutral at all. Please stop kidding yourself and just use the facts. Greenknight 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the intention isn't do occupy it temporarily, nor to occupy it simply as a sign of protest. The intention is to reclaim what is believed to be rightfully theirs. Your definition doesn't fit. - TheMightyQuill 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what You're getting at TheMightyQuill. They aren't leaving. Also, the article isn't mereley about the ocupation, it's about the the actual land (which is disputed). I see that this "Caledonia Land Dispute" is a perfect name. Oka and Ipperwash have crisis in their name which actually is just the tragic events. I think they should be renamed. This article features the history of the land and not just what is going on now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wuffyz (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The intentions of the natives to remain on the site is irrelevant, only their actions are relevant. Someone who bombs a crowded marketplace doesn't consider himself terrorist, he considers himself a patriot or a 'holy soldier'. But his intentions don't change the fact that he is a terrorist. The natives had their day in court, lost, then went ahead and occupied the site anyway. That made it an illegal occupation. The land in question is not in dispute, it is legally the property of the Crown as stated in court. The only ones disputing it are the natives. If I choose to dispute the law of gravity, that does not mean law of gravity is in dispute. Judgeking 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a political conflict, not petty crime. Their claim that it's political is enough to make it political. And political conflicts need to be treated in an NPOV way, rather than simply accepting the government's POV as true, and the six nations as false. The conflict is not one of science - it's social, so don't pretend it's a black and white issue. On that note, stop removing words from the article that point out which point of view certain "facts" are coming from. "According to..." is a perfectly reasonable way of keeping the article NPOV. It's a compromise for both sides. - TheMightyQuill 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just correcting the timeline according to the cited source: CBC - Caledonia Land Claim Historical Timeline. It was originally added correctly, then periodically hacked over the last 6 months with non-NPOV remarks and omissions. Judgeking 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Copying the text directly from the CBC is illegal copyright infringement.

2. At very least, you need to adapt it into the proper verb tense to match the rest of the article.

3. You've removed another cited source from the material.

4. Statements like "according to the Crown" make the material NPOV, not POV. You're assuming the Canadian News Media is NPOV. I'm suggesting it is not.

Would you like to remove the copyright material and fix your edits, or shall I? - TheMightyQuill 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote style

Is there a reason this article is using a weird footnote style, that doesn't list numbers under the references section and doesn't allow <ref> tags? - TheMightyQuill 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates to Timeline

The timeline has ended at April and I would imagine some things have developed since then. Does anyone know what's happening now with the negotiations and the reclaimation? OldManRivers 05:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Power outage

I heard on the radio that the power was out in Caledonia. Someone said in this article that a native protester shut the power off, but I haven't heard anything official about it. Has anyone heard anything more? --JFred 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hydro one siad that it was vandalism and not related to the hydro-tower-looking-thing that was dragged across the highway... but not much else. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked like it was just the south side of the river that was blacked out. once your over the bridge, the lights all seemed to be on. Part of the rezervation was blacked out too while I was there today. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

216.209.108.131 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It was said that Natives drove a car into the Hydro tower, about 3 p.m. May 22nd. After this incident, the whole area was called into ‘State of Emergency’. The power went out in areas from Caledonia to Long Point. One half of Long Point had their power out, the other half didn't. Reports also showed that the same deal happened in Waterford. From Simcoe's radio station, CD 98.9, they were on back-up power and had been told that Simcoe wouldn't have power until Thursday at least. So off many went to buy generators and clear out grocery store shelves. Many drove to Port Dover to their IGA store for food, seeing as their power was still in full swing and was the whole time. Many others drove to Brantford and other surrounding areas with power. Most residents cooked their supper on their BBQ’s. Hydro One workers had to tapped into other local power grids to send power to other small areas that were out. But more problems occurred when Hydro One officials said that they still wouldn't be able to give power back to Simcoe because of their large size. Many schools were out for a day, but others were out longer. The many residents of the surrounding area were extremely angry with Caledonia Natives for what they had done, and still are today. Power was fully restored Wednesday, May 24th to areas that had no power. Some areas were restored earlier then that. The news of the Caledonia incident spread like wild fire to newspapers and television stations like Toronto, Hamilton, and others. There was never news about if the Natives had to pay for the damage or not, and seeing as their still causing hell, they haven’t had to pay. The news of Caledonia must’ve spread around Canada fast, because the same day it was heard on a news station in Hamilton that a group of Natives near Saskatchewan had blocked off a road. Police had cleared the road two hours later. I am not sure of it was in Saskatchewan, or if it was near there, but that was what I had heard.

I've heard nothing about the Natives causing it. --J Fred 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm not totally sure if it was Natives or not. But that's what I heard off the news, and read out of the newspaper. It could've been anyone.

The entire area around the power power substaton was under native "control" at the time this occured. No one but natives had access to that section of hwy #6. It would have been impossible for a non native to get to the power substation let alone get away afterwards. Wiki-DRG (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As well, this has been admitted to by Native spokesperson Janie Jamieson. In a Canadian Press story printed in the Brantford Expositor on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 it was reported........"Over the course of the 15-month occupation, Six Nations protesters temporarily shut down a railway, blockaded the town's main thoroughfare and knocked out the community's hydro, she added.". So no, it could not have "been anyone"Wiki-DRG (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight

It wasn't 6 youths, the injuries weren't all that serious, except for the concussion, and I very much doubt you were there, sitting in Edmonton over there. Admittedly I wasn't either, but the truth has come out finally, so I would very much suggest that you look it up, instead of reading it from cwuc dot com.

SimonRaven 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me, oh wise one. According to CBC(NOT caledoniawakeupcall):

-Sam Gualtieri was in hospital for 5 days, which is a clearly more than required for a little bump on the head(I've had concussions and didn't even go to the hospital). The injuries might not be as bad as initially suggested, but it's still a pretty brutal beating. -The house was a kilometer outside of the contested territory -Nine aboriginals were arrested(possibly in connection with the incident). http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/09/20/caledonia-arrests.html

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I'd be interested in hearing it. No new information has cast a new light on the inicident since the initial reports. The wording describing the incident has been altered since I first commented, but not in any substancial or satisfying manner. The significance of the event is not clear within the context of the article, and the tone of the article still apears to try to sweep the incident under the carpet. --68.149.181.145 01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote User:SimonRaven "It wasn't 6 youths, the injuries weren't all that serious"

-NO....YOU get YOUR facts straight as you obviously have no clue WTF has been going on. Sam Gualtieri "....is no longer a homebuilder because since he was ambushed he has lost his business, can't drive, is constantly dizzy, is unable to remember very much of the past and still has difficulty speaking." http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Warmington_Joe/2008/02/21/4864374-sun.php

Does that sound like "injuries weren't all that serious" to anyone with an open mind ? Try accessing non native sources of information . You'll be surprised what you can learn. Wiki-DRG (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

What's "non-Native" supposed to be, in your eyes? And how would that make it "unbiased" that it's "non-Native" or not? No such thing as unbiased. We're human beings, we all have our biases. It wasn't "6 youths", either. The facts came out afterwards. Go ahead and yell until you're red in the face if you like ;).

Resolution

This dispute has been resolved and the article should include the resolution. (I don't know the details of the resolution or I would do it myself.) BradMajors (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I heard there were still protests going. As of september, anyway. [1] - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am wrong. I thought Canada's $125 million offer settled things - it hasn't. BradMajors (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The money offer was a long time ago. As far as I heard (from the reports from the settlement), they laughed at the governments faces. lolOldManRivers (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The money offer was rejected since that's not what 6N is interested in in the first place. There's been another offer but that is still being considered, on another claim (Welland Canal). I doubt they'll accept that. It's often seen as a stalling tactic ob the government's part to offer things that 6N have previously stated they are not interested in. SimonRaven (^talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a protest exactly, it's a land reclamation effort. These are protestations from an Indigenous people's movement within Six Nations to get the land back under their wing. An assertion of land rights. It's not a protest in the sense of "a demonstration" or "a march". Calling it a "protest" seems to ignore the very basic issues of indigenous land rights, of which this is very much the case. SimonRaven (^talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OPP picture

was the OPP picture taken during the initial police raid or during the police withdral later in the day? Mike McGregor (Can) 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In the April 26, 2006 Tekawennake, page 5, the same photo is there. It states "A still frame from dramatic footage shot durring the raid shows an OPP Tactical Unit officer pointing a tear gas gun in the direction of unarmed Native occupiers. The officer showed restraint by not discharging the weapon. Police chose to retreat instead. (Photo by Jeex)" And another thing, who is Jeex? Is that a username from Wikipedia? It can't be. Wuffyz 5:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - The initial OPP raid took place at 4:45 am when there were no media around. The site was held by the OPP until around 8 am, when hundreds of Six Nations people poured onto the site and pushed the OPP off. The phot would be from this later portion of the event, not the initial raid. g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

January 16, 2007

I think that this development should be discussed in more detail. If this in fact a long house then it likely predates Six Nations occupancy, and may be the remnants of a Neutral Nation settlement. These people were the true occupiers of the land at the time of contact with Europeans, but in the mid-1600s, along with the Hurons, were essentially exterminated by the Iroquois. Later, the Ojibway managed to win control of the land from the Iroqouis and so at the time of the settlement of Upper Canada following the American Revolution, this land was in fact theirs. 69.157.21.147 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a biased interpretation. The five nations and other Iroquois nations were all resident in Ontario pre-contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

very biased

this article is very biased and does not properly explain that the occupation is aganist the law, or that one side has been the cause of most of the violence.

What law? The Canadian Government law? It's really hard to just say something is "illegal" when you're talking about a society that is resisting laws and law-making procedures which have worked to oppress them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.88.103 (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian government is not an unbiased party in this case, since the Six Nations dispute is against the federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Money Offer

I am quite surprised this isn't on here. The only link I have is to MNN [2] Except I cannot find more sources in the Canadian media. The article is long but here is the jist: The Canadian Government offered 126 million dollars to end to the dispute of Caladonia and other surrounding area's. The Reclaimers, rejected the offer. Anyone want to help me out with this one? OldManRivers 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That 'offer' was for 4 of Six Nations 28 remaining claims, none of them the disputed land in Caledonia. Six Nations asked for an accounting of how the offer was arrived at and never received a satisfactory answer. Subsequently one of those claims was addressed with a separate offer of $26m, still without an accounting of how the government arrived at the value. Six Nations advisors said the claim was actually worth $500m to $1b. The government rejected Six Nations $500m counter offer, and has not countered back: Harper only gave them a mandate for $26m.

However, none of this is about the land in dispute in Caledonia - the Plank Road claim - which the federal negotiators will not discuss further, relying on a 'surrender' of 1844 that is disputed by Six Nations.

At this time (July 2009), some Six Nations people have erected smoke shacks on several 'Plank Road' properties, both private and publicly owned. Some have been arrested and charged, and a private property owner has been charged for having an illegal business on his property. Court appearances begin soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

camera crew incident @ canadian tire parking lot

there was an incident where (a) six nations protestor(s?) assaulted a (i believe Hamilton CH) News Crew. The OPP did what they do best, that is stand there looking pretty while they soak up the taxpayers money (ya, its biased - so what... the OPP werent of relief to EITHER side of the situation), until things got past out of hand, and the protestor was arrested. His case was later acquited, as he claimed 'political prisoner' status. i am wondering if anyone has any information on this story? [ps this is my first edit to wikipedia... so spare the bias accusations please](74.14.104.162 03:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)resident of caledonia for the 16 most miserable years of my life)

Now, I know SISIS is probably not an NPOV source, I do not read much from them. But I could not find the Hamilton Specator article. But they quoted it, I think in it's entirety. According to The Spec, Lynda Powless, of the Turtle Island News has photographs of OPP intervening, but she did not publish them. Click here to see it. Forgive me for the lateness of my reply, but better late then never.

This case has already been through the courts, and a Six Nations man was sentenced to 'time served', equal to 1 year as he was held without bail for almost 7 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

POV wording...again

"A local construction worker suffered serious head injuries after a confrontation with occupiers at the 90-home Stirling Woods development. A small group of natives had occupied the property that morning. The occupation was about to end when the clash occurred."

The way this information is presented implies that he magically suffered head injuries and all the aboriginals had done was enter the property. Let's be straight about this - he was severely beaten by 6 aboriginal youths, in a property a few kilometers OUTSIDE of the contested area. Even the Six Nations spokespeople have condemned the actions of those thugs. Come on, they were beating him over the head with blunt intruments when he was already unconscious. The current tone seems intentionally passive and misleading. --68.149.181.145 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's get it straight ... The builder in question did not leave the site when told repeatedly to by police, but hung out by his truck, armed himself with a piece of oak railing, and ran back into the house when he saw Six Nations youths there. He had one youth against the wall with the railing across his throat, almost crushing his windpipe (photos presented in court). Another youth hit Sam to stop him from killing someone.

The youth in question was only 15, so court proceedings were closed to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not just Caledonia

Is the conflict not just over the Douglas Creek Estates land? I thought it was about the whole of six miles on either side of the Grand River. If so, shouldn't the name be "Grand River land dispute"? I thought that the whole conflict in Caledonia was just to draw attention to the claims. Anybody got an opinion? Wuffyz (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably more accurate, but this is likely the most common name... at least the most common NPOV name. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're really limited with this name, because you can't talk about all the things that have been happening in Brantford latley. They have virtually nothing to do with Caledonia, but have all the same root meaning. It's the Grand river land dispute, not just caledonia. I vote to change it. Wuffyz (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I'm not sure about the best course of action. Simply renaming this article doesn't seem like a good solution because it's focused on the Caledonia conflict. What about creating Grand River land dispute, transposing some of the broader content from this article there, and leaving this article as a sub-page? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's going to be hard anyway we do it. In your plan, are you talking about integrating this article into the new one? And how will we seperate the Caledonia happenings from the Brantford happenings? Wuffyz (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. Aside from changing the title of this article, how would you change the content to reflect the new title? What is now the introduction would have to become part of the body describing particular events in related to the Douglas Creek Estates land (which I thought would link to this article). The 2006-present part of the timeline is almost entirely focused on Caledonia. Would you want to intersperse other related events within that timeline, or keep two timelines separate by city? What exactly has been going on in Brantford? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we would try to find all of the information we can on Brantford, and add it to the current timeline, intersperse. What's been going on in Brantford? Ruby and Floyd Montour shutting down various development sites. Not that much has been going on really, but it's enough to be mentioned. Most of the land claim news that you hear now is about Brantford. - Wuffyz (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm not totally convinced but I won't oppose it. =) You might want to do a suggested move poll just in case anyone feels strongly but hasn't paid attention to this discussion. Or you can be bold and make the change, since you did raise the issue about 2 months ago. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to change it to "Grand River land dispute". And I added the first date of when the conflict started in Brantford. I'm going to add more to it, maybe tomorrow. --Wuffyz (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: Add a link to the Six Nations Land Claims document, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/Lands2008Booklet.pdf

Then people can check for themselves which actions are for which claims. Six Nations has 28 claims currently under negotiation, all within the Haldimand Tract, and they also have aboriginal rights in consultation and accommodation talks in Brantford. --24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) g

Miishgoos Rules

Wouldnt worry about it, Just by reading the websites name you'll know which slant the website is taking.

But I would have no disagreement to someone putting up disclaimers if they so choose, I think it would be fine either which way.

Miishgoos Rules

Suggestion: Put the disclaimer in for caledoniawakeupcall.com It's a camouflaged anti-native site, arguably a hate site, and the owner, Gary McHale, has connections to known Canadian white supremacists Paul Fromm, Melissa Guille, Dave Ruud, etc and 'Winston Smith' and others from the US. Gary McHale, Mark Vandermaas and Jeff Parkinson are 'white rights' activists who have infiltrated disgruntled Caledonians, and are recruiting them to the 'white rights' cause.

--24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)g

to do

The article definitely needs a map... Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can add the {{reqmap}} tag to the top of this talk page. Wuffyz 03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Native protestors/Six Nations protestors

I noticed the phrases "Native protestors" and "Six Nations protestors" are often used. But they are not necessarily all natives are they? And are not all directly representing Six Nations, right? They may be from Six Nations, but are not ambassadors. They may believe that what they are doing is in the best intrest for Six Nations, so then should they not be called pro-Six Nations protestors? What do you think of this title? --Wuffyz (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit - They are all traditional people, Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Chiefs, Clan Mothers and community.

There are nonnative supporters, but they are not directly involved in Six Nations actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.95.208 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that many people apposed to the land development on disputed land were not native. 69.159.226.118 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of sourced information

I just reverted an edit that deleted much important sourced information. I recommend that the editor in question explain the reasoning behind edits he made, one by one, before attempting to restore them. Respect. Tiamut 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had to revert it again, if this editor deletes it again it will start to turn into vandalism. Apart from deleting information, these edits also reduce the quality by replacing km² with hectares where we previously had both, and changing the past tense into the present, which also is not sound style in this article. --Chlämens 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people misinterpret "be bold" to mean "be rude". (just kidding) Though it would be nice if he would join the discussion before making changes to pages where longstanding editors have worked to build consensus and a certain style in the article. Maybe he'll come around. Tiamut 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a tag-team effort of some kind, without on dialoguing or regard for WP:RS or WP:NPOV. If it continues much longer, instead of getting drawn into a revert war, we should ask for some outside intervention. Or maybe it's too much to hope that people will come to their senses and talk. Tiamut 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been flagged unbalanced and non-neutral for a reason. I am trying to maintain the NPOV standard and remove certain biased text. If you don't agree, re-read these articles [Undue_weight], [Bias].
- 1784: the text in this section has no source and the comment about current boundaries being only 5% has nothing to do with 1784. It's clearly there to invoke native sympathy.
- 1792: I changed the area from km² to hectares to be consistent with the units in the rest of the section. Using numbers like 950,000 acres in one section, then stating a reduction to 1,110km² makes it seem like a much larger reduction and is biased toward the native POV.
- 1841: There is no source for the statement "However, the related document contained only 6 Chief signatures and did not identify any specific lands", it's only there to invoke native sympathy. The link to the Six Nation's PDF has nothing to do with 1841, it's their current view of the Plank Road dispute.
- 1844: This is a highly relevant statement and a glaring omission from the timeline.
- 1924: There is no cited source that the native government was overthrown at all, forcefully or otherwise, only that an elected government was established.
Judgeking 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1784: yes it does have a source, which is CBS News. If you don't believe that 184.7 km² of 3,800km² is about 5% I also have a source: it's called a "calculator" which people say is quite useful for performing so called "mathematical calculations". I do think that it is relevant to have this statement for comparison. It merely states that Six Nations is 5% of the original grant, it does not say that the land was stolen, or sold, or leased, or annexed, and thus is not a POV statement.

Units of measurement: I agree that we should be consistent. It would be best to have them in both acres and hectares or km squared since not everyone might be familiar with only one of them.

1841: the fact that the source is the offical Six Nations website does not make it any less credible, though it would be good to have another source as well.

1844: I agree with you on this point.

1924: This should probably we worded differently, yes. --Chlämens 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1784: I appreciate the sarcasism, but I wasn't questioning the 5% calculation, but the quote from Governor Simcoe. It sounds like a plausible quote, but there is no source cited and I haven't been able to find one. In regards to the '5%' statement, I agree that it's neutrally worded, but I don't think it belongs in this section, it has nothing to do with the events of 1784. The second opening paragraph of the article when the 'Haldimand Tract' is first mentioned may be a better place. Judgeking 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search brings up this [3]. --Chlämens 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what this guy said on his opinion article is right, but since it is technically "opinion" I deleted it from my edit on OPP issues. If anyone can find other sources, please let me know and I will post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.226.118 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Much of the article is questionable from a NPOV standpoint. The 'Historical Background' section has been placed above the '2006 Dispute' for instance, though the events of 2006 led to the creation of this entry. The 'Turtle Island News', a clearly biased source, is used as reference. In the References section 'reclamationinfo.com' is listed. There are numerous other examples of this kind of sourcing. I have removed these questionable links, though I have not reordered the article. An NPOV flag may be needed unless further action is taken to clean up the suspect sourcing.67.68.23.48 05:28, 12 October 2006

7 years later, and its still a bloody whitewash. "September 13: A local construction worker suffered serious head injuries after a confrontation with occupiers at the 90-home Stirling Woods development. A small group of natives had occupied the property that morning. The occupation was about to end when the clash occurred." His name was Sam Gualtieri and a 'man' named Richard Smoke beat him to within an inch of his life. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2224227-smoke-apologizes-to-gualtieri-and-family-in-court/

This entire article basically removes all responsibility for the violence and chaos from the native protestors. Its completely insane. 142.176.57.222 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

I've essentally reverted your edit because the first refrence you mention above was from the Hamilton Spectator (which mentioned the Turtle Island News), and not from the TIN itself. The Second refrence you mention is ment to illistrate the extent of the Haldimand Tract. if you follow the link, it will take you to a map with the Tract highlighted over a map of present day Ontario. Altough, I have to give you kudos for being so WP:BOLD on your very first edit on Wikipedia! Mike McGregor (Can) 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Entirely your assumption - my IP belongs to a dynamically generated set, and changes often. Regardless, the question here is if the article is unduly slanted in the Six Nations protestors perspective - and I believe the answer is 'yes'. The structure and wording of the article - such as including additional materials which support the Six Nations standpoint while glossing over incidents and reporting which reflect negatively on the Six Nations protestors - seem intended to portray the protestors in the most favorable possible light. The article is long on historical details and short on details of the events which have transpired during the protest. For instance the hydro tower is described as being cut down 'by unknown vandals' - though it was clearly elements within the Six Nations protestors - as they then cut up the fallen hydro tower and used it as part of the barricades. Until this article is cleaned up generally to reflect a more neutral tone, I am flagging it NPOV.67.68.23.48 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add some cited material which will counter the bias you claim exists. Further, unless there is a reliable source which states explicitly that the hydro towers were cut down by first nations, any edit here that claims they did is pure POV and original research. --gbambino 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the transmission station is described as being set on fire by unknown vandals. Not the hydro tower being cut down:

"Also, at some point during the afternoon, unidentified vandals set fire to a nearby power transmitter that plunged Haldimand into a blackout. Hydro One expects it will take a couple of days to restore power.[6]".

I've been told at the site that the hydro towers were in the process of being built, they were not cut down. The article does not seem to claim that they were cut down. But, you say "tomato"... Mike McGregor (Can) 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the NPOV tag. The historical background section is a) vital for understanding the article b) really not that long. Besides, where do you put a background section, if not at the beginning...? The sources used in the article are mostly neutral media sources. Furthermore, the local residents are quoted in the same way as the Six Nation protesters. Believe me, if this article would advocate the Six Nations stand point, it would look quite different. --Chlämens 13:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that are biased. The Turtle Island News is a biased source of course, some say that CH News is biased and even The Expositor. The Hamilton Spectator is a good source when their sources aren't biased. CH News seems to be unreliable at sometimes. Why don't we just keep on citing these sources untill it is no longer a current event? We could clean it up with confirmed information then. Wuffyz 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that fundamentally no changes have been made to the article, which is surprising. To elaborate on earlier examples, it is not simply the sourcing, it is the wording itself that is suspect. For instance, in the section 2006 Dispute, May 22, very little detail is given as to the particulars of the events. Instead, however, we are treated to a quote from a Six Nations chief, stating "..Justice and reason are on our side." Now, from a CTV source (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060523/blockade_dispute_060523/20060524?hub=TopStories) about the same event: "It turned even uglier at around noon Monday, when an SUV driven by a Six Nations protester tried to force its way through the line of locals that had been barring protesters from accessing the site." Some have gone as far as to use links from something called Six Nations Solidarity - possibly one of the most ridiculous sourcings I have ever seen. (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/actionalert/) Obviously the NPOV tag was not enough motivation to clean up the article. When I have time, I will try to clean it up, including the historical context but dropping any obviously partisan sources and adopting neutral phrasing. Let's be honest here. 67.68.30.72 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are equal quotes presented from both sides of the conflict. When one side calls the legitimacy of the Canadian state into question, I'm not sure you can call the Canadian news media entirely NPOV. On the other hand, you are correct - the May 22 section is surprisingly short. Please feel free to expand it. - TheMightyQuill 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute timeline 2006

We added a citation for April 30th 2006 regarding the appointment of former premier David Peterson.This timeline is retrieved from Chronology of Events from Caledonia from the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada government website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikate93 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand River land dispute. 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/20120426071331/http://reclamation.kisikew.org/images/haldimand_tract_map.jpg to http://reclamation.kisikew.org/images/haldimand_tract_map.jpg

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) 23:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Grand River land dispute. 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) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Large revision and reorganisation

Hi all,

I've just implemented a WP:BOLD revision and reorganisation. Some of the main features include:

Including information about issues other than the Douglas Creek Estates dispute, including the ongoing occupation of McKenzie Meadows
Updating the formatting of the history section to be in line with (eg) Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests
Adding additional citations, updating existing ones, and removing very old and inappropriate citations and external links

It still needs a lot more work, particularly the section on DCE itself, but I'm done for the day.James Hyett (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've just had a go at cleaning up the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) section (ie the bulk of what this article used to be). Some notes:

I renamed "History" to "Background", since the idea is to provide a general background for future episodes of the greater dispute.

Slightly more precise and concise language in the introductory part of this section.

I've also sub-divided it into "Dispute Timeline (2005-2006)" and "Further developments", rather than having a decades-long timeline for a dispute that mostly flared up for a few months. I have not touched the "Further developments" section much, but plan on rewriting it as prose.

I did a lot of cleaning up of references, including some that were bare links and some that had succumbed to WP:LINKROT.

Removed non-specifically sourced events that I couldn't find support for anywhere (eg one episode on May 17, 2006, regarding a second car accident and the "Caledonia Citizens Alliance" cited simply to "Simcoe Reformer").

I removed a fairly long passage referring to the "1841 surrender", dated at May 10, 2006, since the only source provided was unidentified pdf, and the passage was all about a law firm that is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Failing to find any sources for this info (it was initially sourced simply as "Brantford Expositor", I've removed it.

Also, I have brought the "Dispute Timeline (2005-2006)" section's formatting inline with Timeline of the 2020 Canadian pipeline and railway protests. I'm not aware of any style specifications for timelines, but if there are some I hope someone will point them out to me.James Hyett (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just finished going through the DCE section, reorganised some things, and cleaned it up a bit. Below is a dead reference that seems like a fairly essential reference and so would be good to find an updated version of it (I was unable). It went after the second paragraph of the Allegations of police inaction section.

Crown tries to cast doubt on Caledonia man's story^{[permanent dead link‍]} by Adrian Humphreys, National Post, November 18, 2009.

James Hyett (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Skyler Williams

The only descriptor James Hyett could muster of Williams in the first sentence was "prominent", going on to say "arrested several times" without context, and then implying that the mere fact of Williams's arrest -- or being charged; James didn't specify, leaving it instead to readers' imaginations -- must mean that he's the "leader"; this, in spite of his own cited reference and other media reports which state that Williams was in fact chosen to be the spox of a leaderless, collective movement. Hyett also made use of the word "alleged", to cast doubt on Williams' denials of being a "leader" (IOW, to bolster Justice R.J. Harper's assertion that Williams had/has the power to force the collective to stand down). The language Hyett used was inherently and blatantly POV, and the section contributes only to (further) criminalize Skyler Williams in the court of public opinion. Williams does indeed merit a section or even a standalone page, but unless and until either is written from a NPOV and in line with given refs, this section should remain blanked. Please note also that I did initially try to edit it, before realizing that the given text couldn't be saved by editing alone. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:390B:D13C:84BA:9F27 (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:390B:D13C:84BA:9F27: thanks for bringing this oversight to my attention! I have no interest in criminalizing anyone. Instead of trying to defame me for being using POV language, why don't you try to bring the text more in line with the given references, or suggest another solution? I don't think deleting the section outright is the answer. I will defend using the more general term "prominent figure in the land dispute" since Williams was involved with Kanonhstaton back when he was nobody's spokesperson (to my understanding), and the article is about the land dispute as a whole, not just Land Back Lane. I admit that the paragraph wasn't as clear as it could be, but why not be constructive instead of blanking? James Hyett (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a go at creating the section again, with more inline citations. I ended up scrapping "prominent figure" because I couldn't quickly find an reference that indicated he was at all "prominent" during Kanonhstaton (he should maybe be removed from the infobox for DCE/Kanonhstaton then, but I'm going to sleep now). What do you think? James Hyett (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Blanking" (a Wikipediasphere word which just means deletion) is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly wasn't in this case. You clearly agree on some level, or else you would have just restored the original text. As for "suggest another solution", are you submitting that I should have left your first crack at Skyler Williams -- the section, if not the person -- in the public arena for the sake of your feelings? If so, I disagree. The original text had to go for the reasons stated above, and it doesn't fall to every editor to undertake every task; if it did, I'd rewrite this article wholesale because, even leaving pro-Canada bias aside, it's a generally crappy article. You also either don't know what "defame" means, or are pretending not to in order to make an unwarranted dig at me. I was right to delete, and I'd do it again. You were right to try to do better, though it's almost unbelievable how obviously bad your first attempt was given how much it improved the second time around. If there's a lesson for you, it's to be more careful when you use the word "alleged". It can really only be read the one way, and thesauri are freely available online, so there's no excuse. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:390B:D13C:84BA:9F27 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a bit more of a thick skin than to suggest you should have left it up to spare my feelings, it just seems to me that you're clearly passionate about this topic and I always think passionate editors can do a lot more help by adding to an article rather than taking away from it. Anyways, this seems to be somewhat resolved now so this doesn't need to be confrontational. I hope you stick around and help to sort out any bias and 'crappiness' you see in this article. James Hyett (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

1492? If you want to do that, give the place to the Huron & go back across the Niagara river! 2600:1700:6801:C10:C434:38EC:BCF:7ADB (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)