Talk:Cypress Hills Massacre

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skookum1 (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 14 March 2015 (→‎notes on anti-BRD process re-name: comment about anti-guideline BRD expanded re another edit comment from the re-mover ; this should be moved back and THEN he can try and RM it; the current RM is out of order and the RfC "wired" by teh anti-BRD move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reverts

An editor has inexplicably reverted a set of cleanup edits. He claims that this edit is justified to preserve a category. Leaving aside the issue of his failure to preserve other improvements, the article does not support the inclusion of that category. It attributes the actual massacring to Americans, and no source has been presented describing the event as a "massacre by First Nations". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you please read more carefully? "Metis" are first nations people, and they participated in the massacre. We're having a broader discussion about these categories, and how to make them more neutral, but wholesale removal will hide these articles from view, so please hold off and come join the discussion until it is resolved. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the category description, the category is applied to "Massacres perpetrated mainly by First Nations peoples." Both the article and its sources make it clear that the massacre was perpetrated mainly by white Americans, and you have provided no sources to the contrary. Furthermore, our article on First Nations states that they are "various Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis" (my emphasis). You have also not provided any rationale for reverting the other changes to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, these cats are still being worked out, including the scope - which is (obviously) intended to cover all aboriginal people, so it should probably be renamed - I didn't invent these cats, and I'm trying to improve them, and you throwing rocks at them and depopulating them based on wikilawyer-like reading of them is not helping. Seriously, just go to the indigenous peoples talk page, make your arguments there on how to improve these cats - piecemeal pointy removal is a waste of everyone's time - you can do your cleanup later.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can do your categorization later, and in the meantime we can avoid including misleading/wrong information in articlespace. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NM, it's not clear whether you actually care, or whether you're just hounding me. In any case, if you do care, plz just bring your opinions to the talk page as I've suggested umpteen times. You're just making more work for everyone. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the relevant talk page to discuss the miscategorization of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already said, the scope of these cats is being redefined; I already corrected an error in the intended scope, that now covers all aboriginal peoples of canada - the cat is now inappropriately named, but that can be easily remedied. Until we have sorted out when and how the by/of cats are used, and given metis certainly were involved as belligerents, both cats (both by and of) should remain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the scope discussion results in a huge broadening of the category, it doesn't apply. In the meantime, the category is incorrect here. We should not include incorrect information in articles simply to facilitate a projectspace discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is extending the scope, which is already so-described, a huge broadening? Also, why won't you come participate in the discussion - chipping away at the edges does little to help - we need a full set of these articles to understand the scope of category changes imagined.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't already so described. Even if we take into account the description that you added contradicting the category name, the category is still designed for massacres perpetuated mainly by aboriginal peoples. Sources on this topic assign the freighters a peripheral role in the conflict at best, and name the white American wolfers as the perpetrators of the massacre. Unless you have sources that contradict that view, you would need to expand the category to include any massacre involving aboriginals as belligerents at all, no matter how small or peripheral their role - and that would be a huge and likely unworkable broadening of scope. As for your second point, feel free to make a list of the "full set" somewhere if you think that helpful, but we should not mislead our readers by including a clearly wrong category for the purposes of discussing the possibility of stretching it to apply. Figure out the scope first, and then if under the new scope the cat applies it can be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Possible Edits to this Page

At the moment this page is very limited in its scope. There is much which feels nearly inappropriate for a wikipedia article, for example "...alcohol had been flowing freely on all sides,". This is a very unprofessional way to explain that there had been alcohol present at this event. Also the Nakoda peoples are misspelt as "Nakota" peoples at one point during the article which detracts from its credibility. The event should be a separate section from what arises as a consequence to the Massacre. Perhaps a new heading would be useful? Also what has happend to Cypress Hill now as a Historic Site of Canada does not belong in the "Event" section. Why when "wolfers" are originally referred to no quotation marks are used and then when these same "wolfers" are used there are quotation marks? What happened to the name 'wolfers"? Why are there no citations for the "In Fiction" section. Many of these would be easy to cite such as the book or the CBC Miniseries. This article has good bones it is simply lacking the overall editing which it requires to improve the validity of the information. Sydpphillips (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Nakoda and Nakota are both used in Sioux related articles; and the category name is different from some titles; I think maybe this article, because it's about Canada, uses Nakota, which is more current in Canada; more common, in Canada though, is Assiniboine; but per WP:NCET#Self-identification the preferred term used by the people(s) should be used no matter what is more common in sources. Question is, what do Canadian Nakoda/Nakota use?Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Outline

The Wikipedia article, Cypress Hill Massacre, will be focusing on all the events that have led to the event, allowing the reader to gain a full understanding of what happened. The article will also explain the lead up and the after math of the event looking closely at the issues surrounding the incident that impacted Canada and the United States. It will be able to explore how conflicting individuals were affected from the indiscriminate. The beginning of the article will focus on the explanation of the events that led up to the Cypress Hill Massacre. A brief history during the 1860’s before the Massacre when killers were viewed as heroes by helping to contribute to a stable society and protecting the innocent and defenseless white woman and children . It will also examine the myths and realities of the Cypress Hill Massacre in One West, Two Myths II: Essays on Comparison edited by Robert Thacker and C.L. Higham, illustrating that there are many rumors surrounding the incident. There will also be a description of Candace Shrek Savage’s study in A Geography Blood: Unearthing Memory from an Prairie Landscape, which will be used throughout this article when explaining the event in-depth from the beginning to the ending on specific detail ideas and concepts. The altitude and understanding of the Cypress Hill Massacre of 1873 will be analyzed with the impact it had on Canada as well as the United States. The angry bewilderment of the Americans in Montana over the subsequent proceedings of the Winnipeg Trial by Canadian Authorities creating conflict and confusing with the atmosphere of violence and bloodshed which swept the American Western frontier in the 1860’s and 1870’s, particularly in Montana. When the wolfers arrived in Battle Creek valley, tensions were already high and continued to escalate, causing twenty-three Nakota deaths and the death of one wolfer. The Cypress Hill Massacre led to the North-West Territories government to pass legislation to Sir John A. MacDonald. Later, then he was able to impact the country with reasoning behind what he thought should happen following the Cypress Hill Massacre. After the Cypress Hill Massacre, the Northwest Mounted Police released a strong opinionated outlook on the situation and all their concerns. One officer pronounced, “What mattered profoundly was that at least thirty Indians… had been murdered on Canadian soil, with the Canadian government powerless to prevent the massacre or avenge it.” Even though the event of the Cypress Hill Massacre took place on June 1, 1873 in the region of Battle Creek, North West Territories (now in Saskatchewan), it greatly impacted the rest of Canada especially the capital. The Cypress Hill Massacre was frightening to Ottawa partially because of the death of Indians but also because of the demonstration of the importance of government authority over the new territories as a concern for the country’s future. In view of the fact that the Cypress incident seemed to confirm Canadians’ worst fears about American lawlessness, and the press enjoyed all the negativity that was assigned to the Americans such as “nasty scums” creating plenty of propaganda. Not only were the Americans and Canadians viewing this event as such a tragic occurrence but it was also viewed as an international incident, thus causing countries to feel the need to get involved and to ensure matters did not worsen over time. Canadians were not only devastated by the massacre but now felt like the Western part of Canada was threatened. In conclusion this article will allow the reader to gain full knowledge of what really happened in the Cypress Hill Massacre. The article will then examine the consequences that the wolfers were charged with, and why none of them were actually convicted at the end of the devastating event. Due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies the charges were dropped.

Rpypker (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Bibliography

Here is some sources we propose to use in our research and editing of this article:

Allen, S. Robert. "A Witness to Murder: The Cypress Hills Massacre and the Conflict of Attitudes towards the Native People of the Canadian And American West during the 1870s" in As Long as the Suns Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies by I. Getty. UBC Press. 2011.

Corbin, Annalies. The Life and times of the Steamboat Red Cloud, or, How Merchants, Mounties, and the Missouri Transformed the West, 41-43. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2006.

Dempsey, Hugh A.. “Cypress Hills Massacre.” The Montana Magazine of History 3 no. 4 (Autumn, 1953), 1-9.

Getty, Ian L.. As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies. British Columbia: UBC Press, 2011.

Goldring, Philip. “Cypress Hills Massacre tragically demonstrated West's need for police force” CanWest News. Don Mills, Ontario. 09 June 2005: 1

Hallowell, Gerald. The Oxford companion to Canadian history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

LaDow, Beth. “The “Melting Pot of Hell”” The Medicine Line: Life and Death on a North American Borderland. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Morrison, William R. “The Mounted Police.” Showing the Flag: The Mounted Police and Canadian Sovereignty in the North, 1894-1925, 1-9. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press, 1985.

Savage, Candace Sherk. “Modern Times.” Geography of Blood, an Unearthing Memory from a Prairie Landscape. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation, 2012.

Thacker, Robert, and C.L. Higham, eds. One West, Two Myths II: Essays on Comparison. Vol. 2. Calgary: University of Calgary Press 2006.

Sharp,Paul F.. “Massacre at Cypress Hills: A Whoop-Up Country Preview.” The Montana Magazine of History 4 no. 1 (Winter, 1954), 26-41.

Emower193 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Article title

Should the article title be "Cypress Hills Massacre" or "Cypress Hills massacre"? Arguments could be made on both sides. For example, a 2008 Canadian social studies book for children, authored by professor Amy von Heyking of the Universty of Lethbridge, uses the term "Cypress Hills massacre",[1] indicating that more recent publications favor "massacre" over "Massacre". The same is true for a 2011 book by Canadian historian William R. Morrison published by the University of British Columbia.[2] Is it safe to say that "Massacre" has fallen out of use in recent years with more current scholarship favoring "massacre"? Which article title should Wikipedia prefer? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Capitalize: It's a historical event, like the Civil War, we don't say "Civil war". Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize: I agree. It's a historical event like the 'Frog Lake Massacre'. Both commonly use the capital 'M'. I also reviewed some of the lower case historical massacres at list of events named massacres and noted that some of these pages have been recently moved to the lower case 'm'.-- Kayoty (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize, all the pages references capitalize 'Massacre', and it is a historical event which merits capitalization. Randy Kryn 9:59 13 March, 2015 (UTC)
  • Capitalise if that is the commonly used term (i.e. if the whole title "Cyprus Hills Massacre" is what is commonly used to refer to the event, rather than an arbitrary title for the event used by the article creator). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I have no opinion in this specific case... The question is whether this is considered a Proper Name for the event... or is a descriptive title for the event. To know that, we have to look at how sources capitalize it. If they capitalize, then we know it is considered a Proper Name (and we should capitalize). If they don't, then we know it is more of a descriptive title (and we should not). It seems the sources are at least somewhat mixed, so the second question becomes "do the sources that treat it as a proper name outweigh the ones that don't?" for that we have to look at quality as well as quantity. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also... please note that there are some editors who feel that an RFC is not the right procedure for discussing changes to article titles. These editors insist that the correct procedure is to file a move request (see WP:RM). Personally, I think both methods are fine, however I am going to simultaneously file an RM anyway - to prevent someone arguing that this was settled "out of process", and thus overturning any consensus reached through the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, trivial complaints get raised all the time. There is no need to distort a process already underway in case someone raises one. Who cares about what they "insist" - I am not aware of any rule stating that RM is the only vehicle that can used to achieve consensus on a move. On WPCANADA, we routinely discuss moves outside RM, even disputed ones. Subsequently starting a separate RM was not helpful whatsoever, because now we have two separate discussions on the same issue. To the extent that opposing views are expressed in one discussion and not the other, we've actually increased the likelihood that someone could challenge the decisions. Hopefully both sets of comments will be taken into account, and if that's the case is there a way to consolidate these discussions now?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the discussion more visibility, particularly to editors who are interested in discussions about page moves. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to accomplish that without initiating separate simultaneous discussions on the same topic. All we've managed to do is significantly increase the potential for confusion, for people's comments to be overlooked and for people to challenge the final consensus. Happily, it appears that the overwhelming consensus in both discussions is to capitalize, so we will likely avoid any problems. But from a process perspective it's a mess. And it was unnecessary.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise Going from finding some people use a small "m" to saying that the capital "M" has fallen out of favour is original research. The idea that because some massacres listed in the list of events named massacres have a small "m" is a valid argument does not hold up as there others in the list that use capital "M". While the MOS may prefer that Wikipedia use a small "m" I see that Wikipedia:Article titles does not stop editors from using the capital "M".
As to sources. Right after the first use of massacre in the article are three sources, Encyclopaedia of Saskatchewan, Canadian Register of Historic Places and Parks Canada, all of which I put there specifically to show that the capital was correct. On top of that the edit summary included two more links, The Canadian Encyclopedia and Collections Canada (not just in the 1875 report where a surplus of capital letters can be seen but on the actual page), both of which use a capital "M". There is also Library and Archives Canada, The Montana Magazine of History and Virtual Museum Canada all using the capital. Semi-relevant and midly amusing it the first link in the section Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names is to the Boston Massacre. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2015

Cypress Hills massacre → Cypress Hills Massacre – Page is being edit warred back and forth between the two titles. As nominator, I have no preference, but it needs to be determined through consensus and not edit warring. Note that there is also a current RFC on this. I am simultaneously posting at WP:RM to prevent anyone from arguing that the RFC was "out of process", and to gain a wider audience for gauging consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a case where a common noun is appended to a proper name (cf. "the massacre at Cypress Hills") and is therefore properly written with a lowercase letter. And Wikipedia does not use title case. --JorisvS (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that this was moved without discussion by somebody unfamiliar with the subject, claiming "common name" (WTF?) to rationalize down-casing MOS - which I reverted, and now see it has been aggressively re-reverted, is outrageous but typical of those who apply MOS as if it were ironclad law, without having anything to do with the article or even knowing what it's about. This is a major event in the history of Western Canada and sufficiently citable in the all-caps form that this should never have happened, and correcting back to where it should be is against guidelines. Bold, Revert, Discuss, is not Bold, Revert, re-Bold/revert, then discuss. This conversation should be taking place on a talkpage titled all-caps, not with a stupidly lower-case version of the name.
  • No amount of rationalizing about MOS can escape the reality that this is a National Historic Site of Canada, the organization for which does capitalize it, as do all mainstream histories and more. What a waste of wiki-energy....all this lower-casing rubbish; there's others I'm watching for similarly abrupt and uncalled for moves e.g. Winnipeg General Strike, Chilcotin War, to be moved by somebody with no knowledge of what those are who only blindly follows a simplistic interpretation of MOS lower-case thinking; notable events should not be so easily downgraded by them nor any idea of what they are about or their importance or notability, or the normative usage in the country the event took place in. I don't know if the editor who moved it or the one who moved it back after I restored capitalization are Canadian or not.
  • Given the historical importance and notability in the history of Canada it seems odd that someone applying MOS would not stop to think about normative Canadian usage; or move it without an examination of google results, page views, incoming links etc.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per CambridgeBayWeather, and is there any way to consolidate these two discussions? It was completely uneccessary to start this RM when there is an ongoing RFC. I find it unlikely that someone would claim "out of process" over a capital "M", and who would care even if they did. The point is to achieve consensus, and there is no rule stating that RM is the only vehicle by which to achieve it. Now we've got more than one discussion on the same issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notes on anti-BRD process re-name

I noted this in the history that it was the nom of the RfC section above who went against WP:BRD by moving it back to the "BOLD" moved title format:

  • (Viriditas moved page Cypress Hills Massacre to Cypress Hills massacre over redirect: Correct title) (undo | thank)
  • 02:44, 13 March 2015‎ Viriditas (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,887 bytes) (0)‎ . . (MOS is clear and unambiguous here) (undo | thank)

CANMOS is very clear that CANENGL is part of MOS, and given what is being posted, notably by the Canadians in the RfC and the parallel RM launched by BlueBoar (who didn't provide any stats etc) about the importance and profile and COMMONNAME of this major event means that Viriditas is clearly out of his depth if he claims the lower-case title is "correct". It is not, and "looks weird" as would Winnipeg general stike, Canadian confederation, Fraser Canyon war and more.

MOS is not clear and unambiguous about this; there have been countless RMs of this kind lately, and not a few BOLD moves followed by arduous, long-winded RMs to try and undo needless and uncalled-for lower-caseings.

CANMOS is part of MOS, point-blank.

The title should be moved back to where it was before the undiscussed move - which means that BlueBoar's RM would be out of order and unneeded, and it would be for Viriditas to prove - which he cannot do - that MOS overrides CANMOS. That such moves are being done by editors from outside the country who have not edited the article and likely have not even read it is highly questionable, especially given the unanimity among Canadians about this title.

"If you don't know about the subject of a discussion stay out of the discussion" it says in guidelines somewhere; and the subject here is the Cypress Hills Massacre and also the norms of Canadian English wikititles; the subject is not false claims about what MOS allegedly is "clear and unambiguous about" made by someone unconcerned with reality who went against guidelines to re-move this back to what is now a controversial title; so his RfC is out of order as it should have been launched to dispute my correct as per BRD back to the uncontroversial title, and then filed his RfC. And only then.

So who caused the mess of having an RM and an RfC giong on at the same time? Not anybody who knows about the subject matter or understands that WP:CANMOS is part of WP:MOS; CANMOS is not specific about lower/upper casing but the blind application of MOS per lower-casing is an ongoing problem and invariably it's been done by people who don't know the subject matter...

Many admins are here so far; please move it back; that makes the RM inert and Viriditas is welcome to try to argue (using actual stats) for a lower-cased titleSkookum1 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit comment on the re-move:
  • 02:47 . . (+2)‎ . . ‎Viriditas (talk | contribs)‎ (This is the incorrect title, buddy)
Sez him, using the put-down tone of "buddy" which given his history towards me is not meant in a friendly way; did he just move it because I had correctly moved it per BRD? Clearly there are many others who know the all-caps form IS the "correct title". Was it just to oppose something I'd done because I'd done it? I'm inline with guidelines and proper procedure; what he has done is NOT in line with guideline and proper procedure. His claims about it being the "correct" title are spurious and unfounded: knee-jerk oppositionism.
The title should be moved back and then he can try and prove all the Canadians who have come forward to assert the CORRECT upper-case title is "wrong". It's not, it's him that's wrong and acting against guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cypress_Hills_Massacre&oldid=651276767"