Talk:Red River Rebellion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Victoriapelky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A new plan for RRR

Many of you who look at these things will have noticed that I've been doing quite a bit of work on bringing Louis Riel up to FAC readiness. As part of that effort, I naturally wrote quite a lot about the RRR. In fact, too much. So what I have done is to transfer most of that information here, and after finishing with RRR here, I will cut that section of Louis Riel back to a more appropriate size. I will attempt to preserve much of the information that was previously here at RRR, and will use much of it to develop the lead section for the now much-expanded article... So editors, don't fear, I will attempt to use as much of the extant text as possible. Some of it that appears to be gone for the moment is actually still there as html comments, to be resurrected later. Inevitably though, the article will be a bit of a mess for awhile, so please bear with me. Please also note that this is part of a longer term effort to bring Louis Riel, Red River Rebellion and North-West Rebellion all up to feature article standard.. your help with any part of this effort would be most appreciated. Regards Fawcett5 20:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've been doing excellent work. The Riel article is superb, and I'm glad to hear you're rubbing it off on related articles! Thanks! --Alexwcovington (talk) 21:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abandoned text

I found the following text contained in HTML comments at the end of the article. Someone who knows something about the subject should decide what to do with it. -- Beland 3 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

The Métis, however, had already arranged their land according to the seigneurial system of their French ancestors that was also used in the French-majority Canadian province of Quebec. In many cases, government surveyors attempted to lay out land survey markers arbitrarily across existing farms and properties. Property maps of Manitoba to this day show the approximately 3.2 kilometres long seigneurial lots perpendicular to rivers, surrounded by the square townships lots of the Dominion Land Survey.

The Red River Settlement was centred on Fort Garry, now modern Winnipeg, which was then owned by the Hudson's Bay Company

It was Upper Fort Garry, actually. Lower Fort Garry is outside the city limits. But that sounds very interesting to put in. Disinclination 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've had it with the infantile uncivility rampant around here. Fawcett5, why did you remove text with the edit summary "rv vandal interpolation"? I merely corrected the spelling of "Michif-speaking". You should read up at Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Good faith, and Wikipedia:Vandalism before you go around calling people names. There are dozens of stupid revert wars going around because people can't behave with basic courtesy when talking to strangers. Furthermore, you are abusing the edit field by using it to make a Wikipedia:Personal attack instead of explaining your edit. If you'd just include a useful edit summary instead of a glib smart remark which is meaningless to me except for being an insult, we wouldn't have to waste time in this discussion. —Michael Z. 2005-11-13 19:23 Z

Presumably he was referring to the anon who posted the mispelling before you corrected it. Maybe Fawcett doesn't know what Michif is (one may reasonably assume he thought the anon was trying to write "mischief"). Adam Bishop 20:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett5 responded with a gracious apology for the misunderstanding at User:Mzajac#Michif. I was a little overreacting, and all is forgiven. —Michael Z. 2005-11-13 21:37 Z

Manitoba enters Confederation. When?

There is a bit confusion of when Manitoba entered Confederation. Another source tells me that it was actually july 15th, 1870 instead of the date given in the arcticle. I am trying to find out which one is which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.132.60 (talk • contribs) date

The Mantioba Act was made on May 12th, 1870, for the creation of Manitoba. July 15th, they entered Confederation. The May 12th date is considered Manitoba's 'birthday', despite that, and this article I believe adheres to that. Disinclination 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B Class, although it requires in-line citations, and of high importance, as I do feel that this event plays a vital role in understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The section regarding Donald Smith is copied almost verbatim from the entry on Smith in the Dictionary of Canadian biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.164.188 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

non-sentence

During the late 1860s the Red River Settlement and it was changing rapidly G. Robert Shiplett 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs)

Resistance or Rebellion

I Belive that the name of the page should be changed from Red River Rebellion to Red River Resistance. I have spoken with many Metis people, and all agree that it was a resistance. If you read into it, or interview a Metis person, you should find I am right. The Metis in Red River did not rebel, they were resisting the Canadian Government and the HBC making plans about forcing them off their land to make room for settlers without consulting them. Dictionary.com (not the best source) says a rebellion is open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler. While the resistance certainly was open and organized, but was completely peaceful. There was not one shot fired at any point, except for the execution. The definition of resistant better fits The RRR. Here it is: the act or power of resisting, opposing, or withstanding. The Metis were withstanding the blatant ignorance of their settlement by the Canadian Government. Please, change the name to be less offensive to the Metis People. Evan G. (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just completed a Google Scholar search results analysis for "Red River Resistance", "Red River Rebellion" and "First Riel Rebellion". "Red River Resistance" comes up 288 times in the last 10 years (2013-2022). Of those results I eliminated 11 as citations of older work or online posting of older books and documents. "Red River Rebellion" comes up 333 times in that same time range; I applied the same standard and eliminated 99 older citations and online posting of older books and documents. "First Riel Rebellion" comes up 17 times in the last 10 years, I've eliminated 4 of the instances as citations of older work. I can share that data with anyone interested.

So the final tally of common usage based on Google Scholar results in the last 10 years are "Red River Resistance" - 277. "Red River Rebellion" - 234. "First Riel Rebellion" - 13.

Based on the analysis I've outlined and the fact that today the Government of Canada refers to the events as the Red River Resistance, as does the Province of Manitoba and The Canadian Encyclopedia, I propose to move the title to "Red River Resistance", with "Red River Rebellion" as an alternate title.

"Red River Uprising" comes up 45 times, but since "First Riel Rebellion" only has 13 current results, I propose to drop that alternate title. LaMétis (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The Red River Métis were a sovereign nation during the time of the Resistance, as the Government of Canada now recognizes. Message of the President of the United States communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of December 8, 1869, information relating to the presence of the honorable William McDougall at Pembina, in Dakota Territory, by the inhabitants of Selkirk settlement to his assumption of the office of Governor of the Northwest Territory. "The grievances [of the half-breeds] are, as near as I could ascertain, that the Dominion of Canada, or foreign authorities, are trying to force upon the Red River people an unsuitable form of government, without even consulting them; that they would be taxed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for pretended rights just purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company by the Dominion of Canada. LaMétis (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And, if Ngram Viewer is a standard recognized by Wikipedia editors, the most recent stats now show "Red River Resistance" as the most recent WP:COMMONNAME. LaMétis (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest Google Scholar, News and NGram Viewer results show that Red River Resistance is now WP:COMMONNAME. Also recognized by the Government of Canada as the Red River Resistance. LaMétis (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the provisional government ended up being recognized by the Canadian government, I don't see how any of its actions can be described as rebellion. Resistance is a better term, although perhaps POV. However it has a lot less POV than the current title. The Métis did resist, but I fail to see how they rebelled. There was a power vacuum, and they filled it.John FitzGerald (talk)

I would argue that resistance is a more accurate term. Rebellion was used and based in a more racist and colonialist perspective towards Indigenous people. Through the Doctrine of Discovery and the attitudes of European nations seeking to establish colonies, European nations and Canada had the attitude that they had dominion over the land through the sale of Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company to Canada, ignoring the Indigenous title to land and the need to sign treaties. The Métis were resisting the assertions of Canada and exercising their Indigenous rights and asserting their title to land. Even contemporaries, such as William Mactavish in 1869, criticized the Canadian government for its refusal to consult the inhabitants of Rupert’s Land about the transfer, John A. Macdonald in 1869 commented that "Under these circumstances it is not to be wondered at that they should be dissatisfied, and should show their discontent", and a biographer of Louis Riel asserted that "Macdonald later admitted that under the circumstances the people of the community had had to form a government for the protection of life and property." Calling it a rebellion is like calling people who are in occupied territories rebels for resisting their illegitimate occupation by a foreign power and for asserting their rights in resisting that occupation. Littlejohn657 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Red River r(R)ebellion

Not sure moving this article from Red River Rebellion to Red River rebellion was a good move. Not sure flyby MoS edits over actually regurgitation of the sources is what we are looking for. Red River rebellion is simply not the norm.--Moxy (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This editor keeps moving pages without consultation. Rebellion should be capitalised like we capitalise war in Korean War for example. -- Kayoty (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed --Moxy (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123015618/http://wsb.datapro.net/rebellions/index.html to http://wsb.datapro.net/rebellions/index.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio issues

I'm about to revert a number of recent additions, primarily due to copyright issues. For example:

Article Text: As the Governor of Rupert’s Land and Assiniboia, William Mactavish he had the power that was in theory absolute. He alone had the protentional to have put a stop to Louis Riel’s Metis uprising. His lack of action at this time could be attributed to his dislike for the political office, or do to his deteriorating health, but the main reason is expected to be his allegiances.

Is way too close to the source text: with powers which were in theory absolute, he alone could perhaps have short-circuited Louis Riel*’s Métis uprising, overruled Dr John Christian Schultz*’s vocal agitation, and overseen a less tempestuous transfer of Rupert’s Land from the HBC to Canada in 1870. His lack of effective action might be seen as a reflection of his distaste for political office and his rapidly deteriorating health.

Another example: article text: Mactavish believed that the inhabitants of Red River played a part in the existing Council of Assiniboia. His sympathies were with the older inhabitants of Red River, the Metis, the HBC people and the descendants of the colonists. He believed that all of these people should have had a voice in the transfer of Rupert’s Land.

And source text: he believed that the majority of Red River inhabitants, both English and French speaking, supported at least passively the existing Council of Assiniboia. The opposition which flared up sporadically he considered to be the work of a few “designing demagogue[s].” His sympathies lay apparently with the older inhabitants of Red River, the Métis, the HBC people, and the descendants of the colonists brought by Selkirk [Douglas*], all of whom, he argued, should have had a voice in the transfer of Rupert’s Land.

Third example: article text: While he was Riel’s prisoner, he was pressured into authorizing loans to the Metis in money and kind from the trading stores, as the trade was rerouted to avoid Upper Fort Garry.

And source text: While Riel’s prisoner, and under pressure from him, Mactavish authorized loans to the Métis in money and kind from the trading stores, which closed because furs and supplies were rerouted to avoid Upper Fort Garry.

This is close paraphrasing, which is not permitted. Much of the content is probably salvagable but it needs to be substantially re-written, and we should not have it in the article in the meantime. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Isn't copyvio a pain! Doug Weller talk 08:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Tent University - peer review

This is a very developed artical and many problems have been adressed in the coments above. It is a very traditional artical, writien in a subjective way that does not distract from the information. The photos are also apropriat,

Reading the artical, expessially the area on Louis Riel leves me wonderering, Who was he? Why him? perhaps exploring the person of Louis Riel could add to the atrical and even give a better idea of why the rebellion played out the way it did. There is information on the acts of rebellion that happend by the Métis that seemes to be missing. This artical simplified the Murder of Thomas Scott a little too much, expecially in the introduction, to me the wording does not seem apropriat and plays down a significant moment in the resistance, this was the exact moment that the rebellion became a true blood battle. This officially seperated the provisional government and the new federal government and affeted all the negotiations between the two. Perhaps the significance could be explored a little more. Something else that might add to the artical could be the religious involvments in this rebellion. Did the curches agree? did they try and stop it? did they participate in the acts? There are letters between Louis and his Sister that add information to thier positions. The popular culture area could also consist of the Louis Riel Comic Book, it talks and show the Rebellion that happend.

The citations and articals look apropriat but this was also adressed in a coment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriapelky (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 21:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Red River Rebellion → Red River Resistance – I've completed a Google Scholar search results analysis for both "Red River Resistance" and "Red River Rebellion". "Red River Resistance" comes up 288 times in the last 10 years (2013-2022). Of those results I eliminated 11 as citations of older work or online postings of older books and documents. "Red River Rebellion" comes up 333 times in that same time range; I applied the same standard and eliminated 99 older citations and online postings of older books and documents. I can share this data with anyone interested.

The final tally of common usage based on Google Scholar results in the last 10 years are:

"Red River Resistance" - 277

"Red River Rebellion" - 234

Based on the analysis I've outlined and the fact that today the Government of Canada refers to the events as the Red River Resistance, as does the Province of Manitoba and The Canadian Encyclopedia, I propose to move the title to "Red River Resistance", with "Red River Rebellion" as an alternate title and redirect page. LaMétis (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ngrams show WP:COMMONNAME threshold not met for use of “Resistance” v “Rebellion”. Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, Mike. A couple of issues with the Ngram results are that they are from 2019 and there is no way to verify or interpret the raw data reported. As noted in this Wikipedia article on search engine tests, "a search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." As an example, both John McDougall (1903) and J. M. Bumsted (1996) wrote commonly cited books on the topic with "Red River Rebellion" in their titles. If you add their names to the Ngram search, it is likely that citations of their work are skewing the data. LaMétis (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still the common name and very much the common name historically. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is the more accurate name that is already adequately represented in scholarly and popular literature and is increasingly overtaking rebellion when looking at journal articles published in the last decade. Yuchitown (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Common name in most of Canada, even though its not used as much in academic circles anymore its still the most recognizable. Rebellion also isn't innately negative, as it was innately a rebellious conflict. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

Title Change

The title of the Red River Rebellion article should be switched to the Red River Resistance, as previously debated. I do not find the final oppositional argument to keeping the title, "Red River Rebellion" valid, as it was absolutely not, innately a rebellious conflict, as the Métis were in no way a voluntary or consulted part of the Dominion of Canada's confederation. Rebellion implies internal insurrection or strife of a group within a state, and thus, would not be appropriate in defining the Métis resistance in the Red River region. Furthermore, Canadian government articles and index pages have been like-minded and have changed the official name. Whether it is academically convenient or not for the reference of often outdated articles, we should strive to reconsider and adapt historical labels to give full respect to the truth of the matter and not simply its post-colonial academic portrayal and perspective. Rkoloff (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)