Talk:Grand River land dispute: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:38, 28 April 2006

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :::: Done. --[[User:Themightyquill|TheMightyQuill]] 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 ::::: Yay! The name makes sense now! [[User:Wuffyz|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.  [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 ==OPP picture==