Jump to content

Talk:Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

'Scandal'?

[edit]

Scandal is an inappropriate word for the title of this article. "Controversy" is the appropriate term. "Scandal" implies definite wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP of great severity, and often scandals become known to the public against the offender's wishes. I'm not going to change it yet because I'm only one person, but "scandal" is simplistic and inflammatory language. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree. Not all the items on this page are even scandalous; many are incidents or controversial. Controversy is the better word. I however, have never moved a page, and don't plan to start now. Annihilatron (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]

"Agent McCleary" involved with the barn burning? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, Sergeant Gilles Brunet Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=

Arar, Air India Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sherurci

[edit]

Just a thought, but perhaps the scope of this article could be expanded to include CSIS as well.Bobanny 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to include the RCMP's role in the recent Toronto terror arrests, and the controversy it has brought up, and a few more recent examples - but did you have any specific CSIS examples in mind? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None at the top of my head, but from my impression, minor scandals crop up once in a while. I could be wrong, maybe its more like publicized bungling than bonified scandals. I though it would be good though to emphasise the historical link between the RCMP and CSIS, since CSIS was intended to be the solution to the Mounties secret service branch. I'll try and do some digging when I get a chance. Definately the Arar case should be a priority for now.

Other items that need adding:

[edit]

Please add: 24.85.108.41 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Ian bush incident crossed out as an incident to be listed? Knave75 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the Danny Possey shooting, along with the findings of the Larry Campbell Coroners Inquest to this page as well.

NPOV issues

[edit]

While most of this article looks pretty good, I believe there are serious neutrality issues with the most recently-added section, 'Racist Murderer gets easy treatment'. (It was added by User:Joybuzzard on December 8th.) The title alone is not neutral, and violates WP:BLP; we shouldn't call people 'murderers' who haven't been convicted of it unless we have very strong grounds to do so, which is not the case here. I'm going to rename it to the less problematic 'Death of Leo LaChance'. The content of the section could also use a rewrite; and it would be good to have more sources to prove that this was, in fact, a major scandal or controversy and so deserves to be included on this page in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, the 'Ian Bush Incident' section also suffers from POV issues (and also needs better sourcing). I'm beginning to think the problem is with this article itself... but these two sections in particular could use cleanup. Terraxos (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustafsen Lake Standoff

[edit]

The Gustafsen Lake Standoff was heavily involved with the RCMP (The Armed Forces were not involved, unlike the Oka Crisis. I was really young at the time, but I do hear about the media black out by the RCMP and the government. Is there enough reliable sources about this whole thing to move further and add it to this article. I don't have a clue where to begin looking at this accept the mainsteam news papers like The Province, and such. But these are the exact media sources that blacked out the incident, so how do you site that? lol Anyways, just a thought I'd like to throw out there. OldManRivers (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of other stuff in BC - contemporary with Oka was the Seton Portage Incident, there's the apparent finagling/bumbling over the BC Legislature Raids and the Sale of BC Rail (including the Premier's family relationship with RCMP boss de Bruckyere), the hidden influence on the persecution of Glen Clark in regard to the Pilarinos Affair (aka Casinogate, which still needs an article; in competition with Pilarinos' application for a casino was another by two retired RCMP officers, one of them the guy in charge of Gustafsen Lake...), the killing of that guy in McLeese Lake (around the same time as the Bush incident)....going way back, and in regard to FN affairs, there was the beating death of tribal leader/political activist Fred Quilt in the Chilcotin, which is one of the things that touched off FN rights in a big way.Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal

[edit]

What criteria must an event meet in order to be listed as a scandal in this article? Sancho 14:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com says:

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. 3. damage to reputation; public disgrace. 4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip. 5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.

So, it would include actions which damage the reputation of the RCMP. It's difficult, because even if, like in the Ian Bush case, officers are cleared of any wrongdoing, a) that doesn't mean damage hasn't been done, and b) it may simply create a worse reputation for the RCMP's ability to investigate itself. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, a reliable source would have to state that one of the above five criteria has been met before we can include an event here as a scandal. Taking your example, for the Ian Bush case, we'd have to find a reliable source that says that damage to the RCMP's reputation has occurred. Sancho 06:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reference to the public outcry would be sufficient. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that "widespread public opinion" hoped for larger public insight into cases involving the RCMP, and the MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, called the findings "disappointing." "I attended days at the inquiry. Having seen the testimony and watched what came forward, it's very difficult to believe entirely the officer's story." Good enough for a keep, but I think better stuff can be found. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) And here is a specific use of the word scandal to describe his death. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking those down. I think this article seems like the place for the Ian Bush article to be merged to then. And we can add more details about the public opinion of this event. Sancho 14:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCMP:SS

[edit]

I'd initially created this article to deal with the scandals of the 1970s that led to the RCMP being stripped of power and CSIS formed, but it now seems to have moved towards a bit more tabloidy scandal-sheet. I'd propose either trimming it back to the original, merging its section on Ian Bush to Ian Bush and including the link in a "See also" section (same with all other post-1979 incidents) -- or else splitting the article to create Timeline of the RCMP Security Service scandals or something similar. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these items aren't notable enough to receive their own articles, but certainly seem notable enough to include here. I don't see what it's "tabloidy" since all of these scandals/controversies have been covered by major national news agencies. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for starting the article. It is only the RCMP's responsibility if the article is very long. "Tabloidy" is subjective. Let the facts speak for themselves. I might cut the issues into centuries or half centuries etc. I think the best way to go is have a short paragraph on each, and for the ones that have their own articles, keep it short, like the article leads, and let people follow the links. Billyshiverstick (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin St. Arnaud case

[edit]

Another case that probably belongs in this article is the killing of Kevin St. Arnaud by an RCMP officer in Vanderhoof, B.C. in 2004 and the arguably botched investigation into this incident.Bill (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hughes

[edit]

I think the recent case of Jeff Hughes should be added. [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=651543 Stormfront thread, with links] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.233.119 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section regarding Constable Benjamin Robinson

[edit]

I've removed the section regarding the drunk driving charges against Constable Benjamin Robinson because this doesn't meet the criteria of a scandal or contraversy. Although sad and severe that a motorcyclist died, this incident did not occur while an officer was on-duty. In addition, there hasn't been an accusation that the investigation, arrest, or charging of Benjamin Robinson was improper. The only reason this got any media was because the officer was involved in the Dziekanski scandal. Since this scandal has its own Wiki page, it would be appropriate to add this to that page but it doesn't deserve its own section on this page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section regarding Death of Leo LaChance

[edit]

I am asking for feedback regarding the removal of the section regarding the death of Leo LaChance. The contraversy regarding LaChance's death was not in relation to the RCMP's activities. The contraversy relates to the fact that the Justice Department layed lesser charges in the death of LaChance and that Carney Nerland only served four years before going into witness protection. Refer to THE KILLING OF LEO LACHANCE. However, charges and sentencing are things decided by the Justice Departement, not the RCMP. This section incorrectly blames the RCMP for something not within their control. It should be removed and moved to another page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

With the recent 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot I was trying to find more about civil unrest in Vancouver and recall the 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot as well as the 1997 APEC Summit. I wish there was more information about the APEC summit, the only page that really covers it is this one.

My point, however, is that there is a Category Riots_and_civil_unrest_in_Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Riots_and_civil_unrest_in_Canada ). The 1997 APEC Summit qualifies but is not listed. I don't know enough about Wikipedia, is is possible to put that one topic into the category? Are there other topics covered in this article that belong in that category? --Michaeldunn123 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Starnes That link on JOHN STARNES at THIS PAGE is wrong, the link is the wrong JOHN STARNES.

News on Ottawa threatening to remove RCMP from British Columbia

[edit]

Should that be added since it's making headlines all over BC? Ominae (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christy signed the new 20-year contract; that was controversial but now a moot point.Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

[edit]

This page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police officers charged criminally in Canada.

I have suggested that Police officers charged criminally in Canadabe merged to List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If all Canadian Police aren't Royal Canadian Mounted Police then change the name of the list to. List of controversies involving the Canadian Police then have a section for each type of Police in Canada. I tried to fix it. What I did was take the names out so it dont fail WP:BLP. It did not name, names. I did not revert it, like the others did without really looking at it and seeing the changes.(there was a mini edit war) If there was a problem with the refs after what I did he should have said so here until a consensus was reached and not revered it. I think it will be deleted but it needs to be done the right way. I just came to help when it was listed here Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Police_officers_charged_criminally_in_Canada. I am not Canadian and dont really know anything about this stuff was just wanting to help. Someone here might want to go back and get the info on it and move it here somehow if you can. Theworm777 (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Quilt inquiry

[edit]

inquiry or enquiry I'm not sure which is at the target of the Fred Quilt redirect....as everyone in WP Canada knows I'm long-winded ;-) so just posting this here so someone else might pen a short section to link/describe it.Skookum1 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

subcategories to Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police needed

[edit]

many of these don't have the RCMP category on them to start with; there's only a few items from here in that category.Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Women Inquiry and the Picton case

[edit]

the RCMP caught a lot of heat in the inquiry and also re the Picton investigation; very high profile, that should be here. Associated controversies with the Highway of Tears have come to light lately, too.Skookum1 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey deLisle affair

[edit]

The RCMP were involved in the arrest of deLisle (Delisle?) even though the controversy more focuses on CSIS not cooperating with the US, whose FBI/CIA/NSA wound up informing the RCMP themselves. Not sure that belongs here; maybe there'a List of controversies involving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or should be.Skookum1 (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High River AB

[edit]

Why no mention of the current investigation into the allegations of misconduct during the town's evacuation for the 2013 floods; the so-called "High River gun grab"? Hundreds of doors broken in and hundreds of firearms confiscated without warrant or probable cause surely counts as a "controversy," does it not? --Grugnir (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "RCMP seizure of High River guns sparks probe". cbc.ca. CBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  • "RCMP felt political pressure over Alberta flood gun seizures". cbc.ca. CBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  • Bell, Rick (3 June 2014). "RCMP probe into High River gun grab delayed again". Calgary Sun. QMI Agency. Retrieved 9 June 2014.

POV Tag Added

[edit]

The article has multiple issues, including

  • Several of the entries lack any evidence of controversy. Examples include, "High River gun grab", "Royal Inland Hospital Taser Incident", "Killing of Inuit sled dogs", etc. Just because YOU think it's controversial doesn't actually mean that it is controversial. Include a source that details the controversy and explain why the it's controversial. Frankly, this entire entry reeks of editors just googling and adding every single case they might have even thought had a hint of controversy.
  • Several of the entries lack proper balance. For example, "Criticism from Canada's top court on failure to protect wife who hired hitman" lacks explanation of the severe judicial misconduct allegations tabled in recent articles.
  • Several of the entries lack enough information to be considered an entire section by themselves. Too many to name.

I'm abstaining from editing the article and will leave it up to the people that have built it to fix the issues. Future Proof Reader (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not allow the major media determine what is "controversial" by default of what it reports? Also, BOTH sides of the controversies should be equally reported, otherwise this article just seems like an excuse to bash the police.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnap of Gibsons BC informant for foreign drug purchase leads to eight years imprisonment and death of RCMP officer.

[edit]

CBC news? Not notable? RCMP inquiry without consequences?

I'm sorry I don't have time for this at this time. Mind blowing story. Ruined life. Criminal cops demand execution of prisoner during incident. Check it out. DHorse1 (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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 07:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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) 00:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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) 01:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 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) 14:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]

Ivanvector, you are wrong with your interpretation of the policy. It has been clarified umpteen times on WP:RSN that external links must comply with WP:RS, otherwise we would see people dumping their personal websites all the time. A source has to be reliable to be included in WP:EL and policies of external link also apply on further reading, per MOS:FURTHER. MBlaze Lightning talk 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is your interpretation of the MOS that is wrong; see WP:ELMAYBE #4. However, I will grant you that the link is to a PDF containing information about living persons which does not indicate its publisher, which is oddly hosted on the WordPress of a Canadian documentary filmmaker. It's highly suspicious, and linking to it from this site constitutes an egregious WP:BLP violation (courtesy ping NadirAli). I'll remove it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, you did already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent enough time evaluating these things and can link you the discussions regarding a number of unreliable websites which used to have their space in external link; findagrave.com, marriedbiography.com, to name a couple—but they are now subject to blanket removal. If you still disagree then we can open a discussion at WP:RSN. MBlaze Lightning talk 17:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Massacre

[edit]

It is supposed to be safe in Canada because RCMP protects Canadians. Over 14 hours a madman wreaked havoc on the people of Nova Scotia, and the RCMP did everything properly.

oops, I guess not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the killer was an informant for the Mounties. Small wonder they reacted so poorly to get their CI. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-shooter-case-has-hallmarks-of-an-undercover-operation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.97.142 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_surrounding_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police&oldid=1229907496"