Talk:Ipperwash Crisis

Indigenous peoples of North America: Anishinaabe

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anishinaabe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Anishinaabe peoples on Wikipedia.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

John Paul Tasker (February 19, 2020). "Trudeau says government working 'extremely hard' to end rail blockade as premiers demand further action". CBC News. Retrieved February 19, 2020. Ottawa has been reluctant to use police to enforce a court injunction because it fears a repeat of the Ipperwash standoff or the Oka crisis.

Untitled

H&K machine gun sentence, that gun has been used for years by SWAT police forces, a regular police officer does not carry such a weapon, the statement seems to represent every police officer. Please rectify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajayfahlman (talk • contribs).

The statement that there were burial grounds that Ipperwash was built upon is ultimately inconclusive. Reports are that it was only a claim and has not been verified to either point otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BT14 (talk • contribs).

Dudley George was the driver of the bus that the natives had used to attempt to run over the police officers. As well, the statement that the native was arrested in a "violent and brutal fashion" sounds hardly like an unbiased report, as only the natives claim that undue force was used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.115.129.253 (talk • contribs).

According to Peter Edwards' book (One Dead Indian, p.7]), Nicholas Cottrelle was the driver of the bus, and was wounded by police gunfire. Dudley George was not on the bus. If you have another reference, please cite.--Bcholmes 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like almost every article on a Canadian aboriginal conflict is POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.181.145 (talk • contribs).

This comment does not fit with Wiki's policies and to my ear belies an easily detectible level of POV". I might equally opine that "almost every report in the mainstream media on a Canadian aboriginal conflict before the Ipperwash Crisis was 'POV'." Neither the previous commenter nor I have done a comprehensive analysis of the literature and both of us are hiding our POV in a vaporous authoritativeness. Trying to sort truth from POV is part of what all reporting should be about, not about merely supporting the POV of one side or the other. The myriad of facts of the Ipperwash case, even those proven in court, are and probably will be disputed till the end of time. That Ipperwash was a kind of watershed or milestone for the Canadian psyche is hard to call POV. Jelly Catullus (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Points

Two additional points seem topical, and I am considering adding them to the article.

First, Ken Deane didn't just think that Dudley George had a rifle, but later realized that it was only a stick. Deane maintained all through the appeal process that Dudley George really had a rifle, and that the native protesters were armed. If anything, this hurt Deane's case: all he'd have to do is convincingly say that he thought Dudley George had a rifle at the time of the shooting. That it later turned out to be a stick isn't legally relevent. Peter Edwards talks about why this position is hard to justify given other facts in the case.

Second, Edwards doesn't seem to address it, but in the testimonies before the Inquiry, some of the native protesters (such as, for example, Nicholas Cottrelle) testified that well before the shooting Deane threatened Dudley George with the claim that he'd be the first one killed.

-- Bcholmes 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The land of Stoney Point First Nation was appropriated in 1942, and not expropriated! There is a difference, and this needs to be corrected in the second sentence of the article. Check the Ipperwash Inquiry Vol. 1, Chapter 4, entitled, the 1942 Appropriation. This document is accessible here: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_1/pdf/E_Vol_1_CH04.pdf

Studentkittenhead (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

In the Background section of the article, it says:

"As early as 1993, while Camp Ipperwash was still being used as cadet summer training centre for the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, a few natives had occupied the an adjescent [sic] piece of land. After the summer of 1993, the cadet camp was no longer used, and cadet training was moved to CFB Borden. This illustrates that the natives occupied the land earlier then 1995."

- How do the facts 1) natives occupied adjacent land as early as 1993 and 2) cadet training was moved after the summer of 1993 illustrate that the natives occupied the land earlier then 1995? That's a stretch of logic, considering what facts that are given to illustrate the point. --130.47.34.2 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a staff cadet, at Ipperwash, in the summer of 1993. That was the last summer that cadets used Ipperwash. During that summer, the natives had taken over ALL of Camp Ipperwash except for the main housing area (this being the barracks, HQ and other buildings found in the SW corner).Rwgill (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there is a difference between Camp Ipperwash (used by DND) and Ipperwash Provincial Park.Rwgill (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge the article on Dudley George here. Besides 2 short sentences about the origin of his name and him being the 8th child, everything is related to the Ipperwash Crises. Clearly it makes therefore more sense to merge all that information in the Ipperwash Crises article and make the Dudley George article a redirect. -- P199 (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, probably a good idea, but we should keep all the info about him. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 short personal notes can easily be incorporated into the Ipperwash Crises article as well. -- P199 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Pheonex (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Dudley George out as a separate linked entry is a bit like leaving an entry for Louis Riel buried in a piece on the Riel Rebellion. George was the only native actually shot and killed in a land dispute (a freighted word, btw) in Canada in the 20th Century. His name is becoming a talisman for native peoples across North America who are trying to exert their rights peacefully and legally over land promised to them and then taken away to build North America into what it is today. I'm always leery of playing the racist card, but leaving out a separate article on George would, I believe, be seen by native Americans and Canadians as ignoring a significant figure in their lives and culture. It would also be an insult to Canadians who are concerned about equity and justice. Dudley's death was ulitmately the cause of bringing a "John Wayne" style Ontario Premier (Mike Harris) before an inquiry to be seen by all and called to account. (I personally liken this to moves to bring far more evil leaders like Pinochet and Milosovic before a public tribunal). Disclosure: I am Canadian; I am not native; I have worked with Sam George, Dudley's brother, without whom Dudley's name and sacrifice would have been lost to the collective consciousness.Jelly Catullus (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty reasonable argument. The comparison with Louis Riel and Dudley George is valid some ways, but not in others. Riel was a prominent leader who was prominent and active for at least 15 years, whereas (at least, to my knowledge) George gained prominence only after his death. I'm not arguing that makes George unimportant, and his legacy is undoubtedly important and probably deserves an artcle, but there just isn't much content to include in an article about him. I don't think the move to merge was ignoring the significance of Dudley George, but simply acknowledged that, to the larger society (although obviously not to his family), his death was more significant than his life. I'm willing to hold off on a merger, but can you think of ways we could expand the Dudley George article? By the way, it sounds like an article on Sam George is definitely needed. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right about my stretching the comparison between Riel and Dudley George and I appreciate your concern about the thinness of the information on him. His death was definitely the defining point of his life as far as the world at large is concerned. I will do some research to fill out his story. In some ways, I think, he is emblematic of the current face of native activism: an ordinary person who's been pushed to the point of relatively peaceful demonstration. That he was then crushed by the political climate is really where Sam comes in. He firmly believes that justice for his people is achievable through peaceful, non-confrontational means. Without his steadfast, ten-year commitment to finding a full answer to who killed his brother, none of the subsequent events leading up to the inquiry and the signal report by Justice Linden would have happened. I have homework to do and will work on fleshing out the piece on Dudley and developing one on Sam. I appreciate your time and wise words. Jelly Catullus (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs more third-party sources

The article depends much on one book and interpretation of the inquiry, which transcript is a primary, not secondary source. It needs more valid third-party sources, since it appears most significant for leading to changes in national and provincial policy. This part could be expanded, rather than arguing details of exactly what happened that day.--Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge completed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose again to merge the article on Dudley George here. 3 years have gone by since the first proposal to allow time for the addition of more info and establish greater notability. That hasn't happened, so nearly everything is still related to the Ipperwash Crises. As per WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E, a person only notable for one event should generally not have an article on them. The little personal info can easily be merged. And don't compare him to Louis Riel: George didn't found a province! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge completed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the article on Ken Deane here. All the arguments related to Dudley George apply to him as well. Only notable for one event (WP:BLP1E). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of word "native"

I noticed when I was in Canada that the word "native" is commonly meant to refer to the Indians. For those of us outside Canada, it is a bit confusing at first. A "native" is someone who is born in a given country. Hence, even in this discussion (see above, "I am Canadian. I am not native.") we get confusing mix of terms. Literally, someone who is not native to Canada has come from another country. For someone born in Canada to say he is not "native" is a logical contradiction.

Some picky people may argue against "Indian" since the indigenous population in Canada did not come from India. Fair enough, but then words like "indigenous" or "aboriginal" or other such highly technical terms might be in order.

Furthermore, I contend that using the word "native" in reference only to the Indians is rather loaded and perhaps too confrontational for an encyclopaedia article. It challenges the legitimacy of the presence of the vast majority of Canadians who are of other ethnic origin but who otherwise were born there and may have had 6,8 or more generations of their family in that country.

I think it is important that language be used precisely in Wikipedia. After all, Mike Harris is just as native to Canada as the late Dudley George was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.104.89 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word 'believing'

'George was unarmed and an OPP officer fired and killed Dudley George, believing the flashlight he held in his hand was a weapon.' Surely we are not in a position to know what the officer believed, only what he later claimed. I propose changing this sentence to read (say) 'claiming that he took the flashlight he held in his hand to be a weapon'. SewerCat (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ipperwash Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Death" to "Killing" to follow Wikipedia policy

changed "Death of Dudley George" to "Killing of Dudley George" per WP:DEATHS DJ (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my uncle was shot at on the night of Sept 5th. Was declared dead Sept 6, by tex Deanne. What about others who were shot at. Noone in stoney point was ever offered an apology to the people of stoney point who were all directly affected that time in history. 74.127.203.249 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scapegoat of project maple

kenneth deane of project maple is alive. Who paying his pension. 74.127.203.249 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]