Talk:Cypress Hills Massacre

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

Suggested additions[edit]

For you editors of the article, some things that could be added to expand this article: Why was the meeting between the trappers and natives so tense? And why were the trappers/wolfers so willing to open fire on a camp of several hundred natives?

(Irishblackwolf (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the above suggestions, and my main concern at this point is citations. I think that you've set up the article thus far really well, but there are only two points in the article that have citations, so if you just add some more citations I think that your article will have more merit! Good job so far!

Lbaronikian (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great start on the article, I also noticed that there could be more links made to specific words within the article for an example: linking Fort Whoop-Up to its wikipedia page or the words English/French to its wikipedia page. Citations would be another one of my observations as well but very good start! Tgoodkey (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)TgoodkeyTgoodkey (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Proposed Bibliography[edit]

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[edit]

There's fairly clear consensus here for capitalization. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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[edit]

  • 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]
Re the semi-logic rhetorical speculation on this RfC's launch, this line "Is it safe to say that "Massacre" has fallen out of use in recent years with more current scholarship favoring "massacre"? " has a very simple answer in WP:TITLE: "the interests of the general readership should be put before those of specialists". Invoking the WP:Specialist style fallacy to justify an uncalled for reversion of a valid title without knowing anything about the subject or its importance without any regard for COMMONUSE and national standards is getting to be too "typically Wikipedian". Current scholarship is not the arbiter of things, though those who invoked it like to pretend it's all that matters...RS is a LOT larger than so-called "scholarship" and its shifting style and methodology stances.Skookum1 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2015 (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.

Requested move 13 March 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Support, for the reasons given by editors both in this section and in the one above this. A major event in Canadian history, and well within the norm for capitalization on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 2:19 14 March, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Capital is harmless and helpful here, so by WP:IAR it should be there. If the rules can be read as justifying such determined opposition to such a change, they need to be tweaked. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this name is similar to Spanish Civil War. And a cursory look at google books shows that most scholar sources capitalize the name. I don't support Veridita's theory, two books are two few books to support any theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

notes on anti-BRD process re-name[edit]

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]
See WP:WRONGVERSION. Between the RFC and the RM, we can now discover which version has consensus, and move forward from there. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a link that says "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally" has no place in a discussion relating to the policy known as WP:TITLE where, among many other relevant things it has to say, long-standing stable titles should not be moved without consensus; that was not done here, and certainly was against guidelines for it to be moved back contrary to BRD.
Also per TITLE when there's a case there's an intractable dispute the preferences of the creator of the article should be respected, if properly titled per general policy (conciseness, precision, NPOV etc); though if it was capitalized after creation long ago in the mists of wiki-time and has stayed that way since then it's a "stable title and should not be moved without consensus"
It also says in general guidelines re title disputes and more that "if you're not familiar with the subject of a discussion, please do not take part [and/or vote]". Somehow that's one of those guidelines, like so many policy issues, that those who regard guidelines on a one-note-samba basis, i.e. on one guideline alone without thought of policy or other guidelines that may apply, or standards within a regional/national WikiProject either.
There's no intractable dispute here, as you can see from the roster of capitalize and support moves. The title should be moved back, your RM can be closed as out of order and per WP:SNOWBALL and Viriditas and User:Dagos Navy are welcome to try wiki-lawyering it with massive amounts of stats searches to make their very wrong case in a further RM.
Given the number of Canadians here among the support/capitalize votes who are editors of note, I suggest that - another RM to try to lower-case this - would be just another further waste of Wikitime as this undiscussed move of a very-well-known title to lower-casing by somebody who (a) doesn't know anything about the subject and (b) moved (and another re-moved) a long-standingL capitalized title about a major event per a very blind and narrow reading of MOS, and without providing any data to back up the claims made, under the very false premises that the capitalized version if not "the correct title".
The capitalized title is the correct title, not "incorrect" per V - who's he to say? does he even know where this is or what happened??? - and this is all a waste of wiki-energy because of someone blindly following MOS about something they don't understand, and another going against BRD to revert away from a long-standing stable title that CLEARLY has broad, and firm consensus.
throwing up not even a guideline but a joke page to content obvious policy and consensus is....a joke, and yet more waste of wiki-energy and wiki-time. Would somebody responsible move this back to where it's been for years and shut down both these discussions. This is clearly SNOWBALL for capitalization, as will be responses to any similar titles by those from outside Canada who don't know where or what they're talking about; and haven't read TITLE. It's long and challenging and requires thought so those that rant about Walls of Text perhaps have never read or studied it.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out my "long-standing title" bit as CambridgeBayWeather was who capitalized it in January (as another Canadian, he would know to as per other major-event titles like Oka Crisis, October Crisis, Gustafsen Lake Standoff, Winnipeg General Strike et al - all major events with recognizable "proper names". I don't see a previous move since its creation in '04 but I do see that the very first version used all-caps in the lede, indicating normal CANENGLISH usage and recognition of the importance of the event in Canadian history.Skookum1 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise I note that the Cypress Hills Massacre is associated with an official site, the Cypress Hills Massacre National Historic Site of Canada. Under normal circumstances, 'Cypress Hills' (a proper name and capitalised accordingly though in this usage it is not acting as a proper name) is acting as an attributive noun phrase, modifying 'massacre', which is a common noun. However, it is perhaps too difficult and potentially ambiguous to disentangle the site name from Cypress Hills massacre, being the event. n-grams [3] (at roughly 80% for the capitalised version suggests it is fairly consistently capitalised but again, this may be because of reference to the site rater than the event. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those hits do not appear to be for the site. I agree with you that this one passes, or at least nearly passes, the MOS:CAPS "consistently capitalized in sources" test. But some of these guys are equally adamant about capitalizing things that do not, sadly. I'm not sure why Dagos Navy decided to pick this one, or what Viriditas thinks is clear and unambiguous. Not much chance of it going that way. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Draft[edit]

Here is a copy of my portion of the new article for the Cypress Hills Massacre. I focus on the actual event and the origins of the conflict. For some reason when I try to break it into paragraphs the format gets weird. The increasing development on the Canadian and American west produced negative reactions from the local tribes, as their traditional way of living was drastically changing. As a result, violence between Indian and White population had become more commonplace during the 1870s. One place in particular was Fort Whoop-Up, a fort located along the Canadian side of the border near the Cypress Hills, where American traders from Fort Benson would cross the border to sell liquor to Indians. The incident began in the spring of 1873 when a small party of Canadian and American wolfers, led by Thomas W. Hardwick and John Evans, were returning from their winter hunt. While they camped on the Teton River a group of unknown Indians stole their horses. After determining that their horses were indeed stolen the men travelled to Fort Benson, about five miles, with the intention of regaining their horses. At Fort Benson the wolfers pleading for assistance and justice for the crimes against them, but were met with a refusal by the local military commander. On their own, the men began an expedition in order to retrieve the stolen horses. In total, the party was comprised of thirteen men, a collection of American and Canadian free traders. Described as typical frontiersmen, the group had had previous conflicts with Indians and were ill-equipped to avoid violence and seek peace. The group quickly traveled from Fort Benson northward across the border in pursuit of the stolen horses. They eventually arrived at Abe Farwell’s post, a small trading post located five miles from Fort Farwell. While the group was here they met up with George Hammond, an unsavory figure who had recently been selling whiskey to the Indians with Farwell. Hammond was a close friend with John Evans, the leader of the group, and subsequently joined with the other wolfers in the search for the horses. Farwell assured Evans that Little Soldier, the leader of a small band of Assiniboine that was located near the trading post, had no horses with them. After a brief search it was determined by the group that Little Soldier showed no evidence that he stole their horses. Evans, Hammond, and the rest of the wolfers retired for the night at Farwell’s trading post. The gang spent the evening and the next morning drinking Farwell’s whiskey with a group of recently arrived Metis freighters. In the morning it was discovered that one of Little Soldier’s Indians had stolen George Hammond’s horse for a second time.Mad with rage and whiskey, Hammond grabbed a rifle and started towards Little Soldier’s camp cursing in English and French. He insisted that the rest of the wolfers join him and forcibly take back his horse. The wolfers, along with the Metis, followed Hammond towards the Assiniboine camp. Historical accounts differ on what happened during the skirmish, as there were no reliable testimonies. Abe Farwell testified that he tried to restrain Hammond in an attempt to avoid any unnecessary violence. Hammond approached Little Soldier’s tent asking about the missing horse. Little Soldier replied that his group had not stolen the horse but that it was in fact grazing on a nearby hill. Both Little Soldier and Hammond’s parties were intoxicated and negotiations between them fell through. Little Soldier went so far to give Hammond two of his horses as hostage until the missing horse could be found. The situation became increasingly tense as women and children were seen fleeing from the camp, and the Indian men taking off their garments in preparation for violence. The wolfers discerned these actions as a signal for war and lined up along a riverbank fifty yards outside the Assiniboine camp. In return, Little Soldier asked Hammond why his group were taking such menacing positions. In a last ditch effort to avoid violence Farwell pleaded with the wolfers, asking them not to shoot at the Indians especially when there was a white man among them. Before he could continue negotiating with Little Soldier and the wolfers, Farwell saw Hammond fire his rifle at the Indians. The rest of the wolfers, protected by the tall river bank fired volleys onto the Indian camp. The Indians, using inferior guns, attempted to return fire but were unable to sustain an attack. They did manage to kill one wolfer, a French-Canadian named Ed Legrace. The number of casualties differs from accounts but the number of Assiniboine deaths was higher than twenty. In the personal account of Donald Graham, who joined the wolfers at Fort Benson and travelled with them to Cypress Hills, he mentions that there were only thirteen Indians dead. After the battle, the wolfers buried Legrace in an Indian cabin and set the building ablaze. His wooden coffin still remains there to this day. Rpypker (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Assignment: Suggestions for Article Improvement[edit]

This article does a great job so far of explaining the overall Cypress Hill Massacre. I have just a few suggestions for the article. First, the opening introduction section could use a bit more information. As a Wikipedia user, I usually skim through the beginning section of an article to see if there is useful information. If more was added to this section in addition to who was involved in the massacre, readers would find more reason to continue reading the rest of the article. I have noticed that the introduction paragraph in many Wikipedia articles often highlight the key things that will be discussed. Setting it up this way would assist in the overall organization and structure of the article. I also recommend adding more sections to the article in addition to “the event” and “fiction.” Perhaps there could be a section that discusses tensions leading up to the actual massacre? This would allow for the information in “the event” to be broken up a bit. It would also give the article a time-line structure. A section at the end that explains the significance of the massacre in Canadian history would also be beneficial to the overall article. There are also a few mentions in the article that have their own Wikipedia pages. For example, the opening paragraph in “the event” mentions Fort Whoop-Up. If you search Fort Whoop-Up you will find a page dedicated specifically to it. By adding two square brackets around it (ex: Fort Whoop-Up) you can make it a link. This way, readers can click on it to access further information. My last recommendation is just adding more sources which I am sure you guys plan to do. As of now there is only one. Providing more scholarly sources will make the article much more informative. If the information in “the event” section discussing what people were saying is being kept, it should be cited. For example, “in the personal account of Donald Graham, who joined the wolfers at Fort Benson and travelled with them to Cypress Hills, he mentions that there were only thirteen Indians dead.” This is something that diffidently needs a citation. As far as proofreading, I would suggest breaking up sentences. Short sentences are always more clear. This article consists of many long ones that try to incorporate more than one idea or point. If there are two points, it’s always better to separate them into two sentences. Overall, the article is great and provides a lot of good information! I’m sure it will be outstanding once you guys are through with it! Jamie Lotton (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Potential Article Improvements[edit]

The article overall does a good job going through the actual event. The first suggestion I have for improving the article would be to provide more background on the lead up to the event. By explaining why the event happened in a separate section I think it makes readers more likely to understand the event itself. I also think this would be beneficial as the current lay-out of the article, with just the one section titled 'The Event', makes it difficult to follow.

The actual event section can also be broken up, it contains information about the different people and groups involved in the event. Since there are so many different groups involved I think it would be beneficial to explain who each group was and why they specifically were a part of the massacre. This could be done in a different section to help make the event section smaller and therefore easier for readers to follow.

There are a few mention of specific people in the article, for example Thomas W. Hardwick and John Evans, I would suggest either linking to wikipedia articles about them if they exist or briefly explaining who they were and what their actual role was during the massacre within the article.

There is one sentence at the end of 'The Event' section that mentions how the NorthWest Mounted Police were established as a result of the massacre I would expand on that one sentence and include it in a section about the legacy of the event and what happened after.

Finally I would suggest more sources need to be sure, which I am sure, based on your bibliography posted above, you are planning on doing. The entire 'The Event' section currently has no citations and there is information included that are very specific facts about the event and should definitely be cited. Overall I think when the article is finished it will be a definite improvement from the current article. Toriferr (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Article[edit]

There seems to be a vast amount of information which you all have on this article. It is personally extremely disconcerting to see the lack of citations that you guys have, clearly you got your information from somewhere! I agree with some of the other reviews in regard to the fact that there should be a great division of the article. By just having one large block section on the "event" it does not allow for a quick study of the information. If you perhaps talked about the events that lead to the massacre in one section, perhaps the key players, the event itself and then a discussion of its importance in contemporary times (the historical designation, etc). Please be careful with certain pieces of grammar. I would suggest that one of you takes the time to read your article aloud to see if the grammar is proper. For example the second last line of the intro paragraph is worded very strangely. A lot of what I wanted to say has been said but I think it is important to reiterate the importance of citations, linking other wikipedia pages to yours, and breaking up the event section into multiple sections. There simply needs to be much better flow on this article. I think you guys are on the right track though and I wish you all the best. Sydpphillips (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Cypress Hills Massacre Article[edit]

Overall, this is a good start to your article; however, there are some major problems. The first problem that needs to be addressed immediately in this article is the lack of citations. Clearly, the information provided in each section of this article is not common knowledge. Therefore, you must cite information/ideas that are not your own. If you do not take this into consideration, Professor Dummit could think that you are plagiarizing this article. I really hope this is not your intent! Secondly, without the citations, it makes it seem like as if you haven't done any research (only 3 sources present in the bibliography). Another problem that needs to be addressed in this Wikipedia article is a better explanation of certain terms. For example, you mention in the introduction that there was a "mass murder" that occurred in June 1, 1873 and that it involved American bison hunters, etc. There are some questions that come to mind while reading this. Who was getting killed? The Aboriginals? Settlers? Who was killing whom? Why? These are some of the questions that you should be considering while revising this article. As well, you should include at least some reason of why the Cypress Hills Massacre happened in the first place. This could be a separate section by itself listed "events leading up to the Cypress Hills Massacre". In this, you could explain about the social/political setting of Cypress Hills (ie. What were the bison hunters/others doing before the massacre? What was the reason? Could it have been prevented?) before the massacre. To accomplish this, use the KISS method (no not when two people kiss on lips, but the following: Keep It Simple Stupid). When someone reads this article, they should get a comprehensive knowledge of what happened at the Cypress Hills Massacre and why it is significant to Canadian history. There was just one sentence that mentioned this in the entire article! It is strongly recommended that you elaborate on this element while revising this article. My last recommendation for this article is that there should more headings which answer the following: what? where? who? why? What was the Cypress Hills Massacre? What was the underlying reason behind this? Where did it happened (location is nice, maybe provide a map of where it is)? Who was involved? Why were they involved? Why is this massacre significant to Canadian history and the region itself? By doing all the recommendations provided, this article would be much more articulate and clear for the reader. Taso Bouzinelos (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

The introduction to this article is great! It gives you the exact amount of information you need to keep reader without giving away any of the details. Unfortunately, there are some issues in the actual article itself. First, there are very few citations considering how much information is being provided. There is also speculation about people's mental and physical states (ex: "mad with rage and fuelled by whiskey), which should be avoided when recounting historical events. There is no background information to explain why there was tension between the all of the actors of the Cypress Hill Massacre. A brief lesson on Western Canadian politics and race relations would be very helpful. Additionally, there is no information about the consequences of the Cypress Hill Massacre. In the introduction, it states that the massacre resulted in the creation of the Northwest Mounted Police, but the article doesn't mention it again after that. I think that this article will be really good once it has this additional information, as well as the citations to back it up.

Megan.R.Mc (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

In the first paragraph, the wording seems a bit fragmented when you say "An estimated 20 natives died and one wolfer." perhaps some revisions could be made to create a more fluent structure. Within your body paragraph there is also a lack of wikipedia hyperlinks as to connect to other articles. Some of the possible links could be "Fort Benson", and "Fort Whoop-Up" who both have a wikipedia page. The "In Fiction" section could use any citations that would allow you to back up how the Cypress Hills have been portrayed. You already have the 'englishmans boy' to work with in that regard. I think that one of your article's biggest issues is concerning your lack of citations and references, within your body paragraph (which is well written) there needs to something to back up your claim of the event itself, or even how Thomas Hardwick and John Evans tried to reclaim their horses. Heres a source that can be found at the library that might be able to coincide with your article. Walter Hildebrandt, Brian Hubner, The Cypress Hills: An Island by Itself Purich Publication, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlocksley (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Overall

I will be editing the wording of your sentences by placing my own suggested words in square brackets within quotes of you writing. Very few sources are quoted in your article and this might help to explain why your article is on the shorter side. Your reporting of this even seems to be quite one sided as it mainly follows the journey of the aggressors up until the massacre. It makes sense that there would be an emphasis on the Canadian perspective as your sources might have this slant but I fail to see any aspect of this event through the indigenous view.

Introduction

This is a wonderful introduction as it gives a solid overview of what this event was about. It conforms to what other Wikipedia articles’ introductions look like. It is concise and includes useful hyperlinks. Good work  Info Box" Under the photograph in your info box there is the phrase “Site of the Cypress Hills Massacre.” This would better suit your box’s title and would make the box look tidier if it was not directly under the photo. I really like the inclusion of this information box in your article. The information that it provides is better suited to be placed in the box than to receive its own heading and paragraph.

The Event

You could break this topic up more to make your article easier to navigate. Your first heading could be “Tensions Building up to the Massacre.” This title could encompass your first paragraph. - Rewording: “One place in particular [that saw violence] was Fort Whoop-Up. [The fort was] located along the Canadian [ ] border near [ ] Cypress Hills. [It was from this location that] American traders from Fort Benson would cross the border to sell liquor to [native peoples]."

Your next heading could be something like “Beginnings” or “Days Leading up to the Massacre.” This could contain the information in your second and third paragraphs. This paragraph was eloquently written. Each sentence was necessary for the success of this paragraph. There was lots of information. - Rewording: “Described as typical frontiersmen, the group had had previous conflicts with Natives and were unwilling to seek peace[. They were] prepared to use violence [in order] to retrieve their stolen property.” - Rewording: “Hammond was [ ] close friend[s] with John Evans, the leader of the group…” - “Mad with rage and fueled by whiskey, Hammond grabbed a rifle and started towards Little Soldier’s camp cursing in English and French.” This sentence reads like it is a part of a novel. It should not sound so dramatic. Your fourth paragraph could have its own heading as well indicating that you are going to be talking about the massacre event by itself. 

Sources

I notice that you draw on very weak sources for your article. You might be able to add more information if you were to use academic sources. Web sites are not always the most accurate of sources.

--Caitlinmcgrath (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I think you have done a good job buffing up the information in this article but I do have a couple of suggestions that I think would improve it further.

First I really think the article needs to be broken up a little, at the moment its an overwhelming quantity of writing. Possible sections could be an introduction discussing the increasingly poor relations between the indigenous peoples and Canadians. Another could be the lead up to the massacre then the massacre itself and perhaps an aftermath section?

Things that could also be added could be information about what were Little Soldier's relations with the local military like by comparison to the American troops? Was it better or worse? Also why did the local commander turn away the Americans? Could this reflect on American-Canadian relations at the time. There are also a few references that the horses were definitely stolen and in the second instance by one of Little Soldier's men. Was this actually proven? If not the wording should probably be altered to be a bit more neutral.

Otherwise good work guys! (JamesWhite2 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Copy/paste from source[edit]

Will deal with properly when I have time, but this article needs to be looked at for copyright/paraphrasing. The Friesen source (currently fn#4) has been used verbatim in at least one instance. The Interior (Talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the text from the editor who added this content, as it looks to be all straight copypaste from the source. I haven't checked the rest of the article however. The Interior (Talk) 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this really unbalances the article. Don't have time to rewrite at present though :( The Interior (Talk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up unwarranted characterisations and inconsistent usage[edit]

I am embarking on a general clean-up edit of this article. There are two main problems:

1. A number of opinions and characterisations--which are neither supported by citations nor attributed to original sources--need to be removed; and

2. The use of the terms 'Indian' and 'Native' is inconsistent and colloquial rather than historically contextual and rigourous.

I am not yet certain as to how best to solve problem #2 (suggestions will be welcomed), but problem #1 is straightforward: To avoid biasing readers' views of 19th-century people and events by using 21st-century PC language to describe and characterise them, those characteriations need to be removed leaving only verifiable facts which the reader can then use to form his own opinions.

Example: In an encyclopædic context, there is no call for using an editorial adjective such as 'unsavoury' when describing a person. Instead, the encyclopædist should cite only the historically-documented actions of that person, and allow the reader to pick his own adjectives.

Example: There no call for editorially characterising the event itself as a 'mass murder'. Such writing is inflammatory and entirely inappropriate in an encyclopædic context and tends to distort history to make it agree with the author's personal views. In today's legal parlance, the conflict at Cypress Hills might have been described as a 'consensual fight'--the sort of thing that happens when two irreconcilable antagonists meet under conditions conducive to violence. No doubt some would disagree with this...which is why such characterisations fall under the banner of 'opinion' and should not be included in a factual article in an encyclopædia.

Example: There is no call for comments such as '... the three men were acquitted. [...] Therefore, the courts never sentenced the men that caused the Cypress Hills Massacre' (emphasis added). Comments such as this are pure editoralising, and have no place in an encyclopædic context. (They draw a conclusion that is not supported even by the facts reported by the author himself. From a reading of the article, it is apparent that the causes of the Cypress Hills Massacre inlcuded (a) an endemic, mutual distrust of each party to the conflict by the other; and (b) drunkenness on both sides.)


There is an old saying that 'history is written by the victors'...but today, it is being re-written by apologists grinding their political axes on the whetstone of social conscience. From the historian's point of view, that is equally bad. Encyclopædists and honest journalists are supposed to be above that sort of bias. So remember the words of Jack Webb: 'Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.'

24.75.176.188 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cypress_Hills_Massacre&oldid=1212407242"