Talk:October Crisis

message: I removed this sentence: "It must be however noted that the RCMP staged several fake terrorist acts in order to bolster fear of the FLQ movement.
Where is the proof for this? I have not been able to find any. The article states that over 200 terrorist acts were carried out by the FLQ. Considering this (and in the absence of proof) I don't think it is correct to say the RCMP would need to stage terrorist acts to bolster fear of the FLQ.
I also removed this sentence: "It must be taken care not to overblow the size of a movement which conducted no more than a few isolated operations."
Is this sentence relevant? How is 200 terrorist acts "a few isolated operations." Joseph haley 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RCMP burned down a barn that belonged to Paul Rose's mother in 1972. They also produced a fake FLQ manifesto in 1971, in order to prove that the terrorist movement was "still alive". These are well-documented facts; you can read the wiki article about Scandals surrounding the RCMP. Please note that these actions were taken AFTER the October Crisis, at a time when the FLQ wasn't active anymore, so it is understandable that the RCMP would want to "perpetuate" the climate of fear, knowing that the separatist movement was moving towards the (non-violent) political arena at the time. -- Hugo Dufort 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What are the sources for the "200 violent crimes" committed by the FLQ? I don't see any reference in this section. Just wondering; any undocumented information is subject to caution. -- Hugo Dufort 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (I suggest for anyone claiming the RCMP was not involved in bombings and terrorist acts and that the FLQ commited 200 violent acts without knowing what they are talking about to read Investigation Commisson transcripts, Keable commission, McDonald report, to get information on John Starnes one of the Director of Security Services of the RCMP, read newspapers from the late 70s, to learn about Operation Essai, Operation Ham, Carole Devault, Robert Samson, Claude Morin) 
I suggest a link to RCMP terrorist actions and False Flag operations to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandals_surrounding_the_RCMP
Heres information I found related to RCMP activities;
Keable Commission and McDonald Report found
The Canadian secret services and RCMP
have conducted operations against
the sovergnty movement from
1969 to 1978  
December 19, 1969 Trudeau and Robertson ask RCMP Commisioner Higget to deal with seperatists the same way they previously tackled communists. They give the RCMP a blank check (dont tell us, just do it).
RCMP creates Section G to fight against seperatism
1970 after FLQ kidnaps Cross and Laporte, Canadian secret services create the 'Strategic Operation Center' to counter FLQ, the SOC learns that the FLQ has more support from the population than anticipated
RCMP spreads reports of 50 FLQ cells massively armed while Quebec provincial police signals 4 Cells
Operation Essai the name of the military operation that was to operate under Wars Measures act.
Nearly 500 arrest are made without any court orders of people believe to be potential FLQ members.
Carole Devault (24 yrs old) (Code named agent SAT 945171) is used to infiltrate FLQ and
also used as an Agen Provocateur to foster terrorism (including planning of bulglary before Cross is recovered and placing bomb after FLQ arrest and Cross liberated).
In December 1970(shortly after crisis), C. Devault actually creates the first of several phoney FLQ cells which in january 1971 places a fire bomb at Brink's. The Police proclaims there is a FLQ renewal (helps intensify anti-seperatism operation). Devault is not the only agent engaging in False Flag operations to be pinned on the FLQ but she is the most documented.
19 February agent Devault uses dynamite bomb behind a post office.
She then creates 6 new (flase) cells that make (false) FLQ communiqués.
Devault then creates the Jalbert cell which attempts extortion by threatening to explode an airplane in midflight
At the end of 1971, Devault organizes a new hold up.
Shortly after Vallières quits FLQ, (alledging there's nearly no real members left in the FLQ, its like preaching to police agents). 
Then another communique is released stating that power can only be obtained at the end of a gun. This communique was arranged by Cobb, in charge of the RCMP, later to be revealed that it was one of several RCMP fabricated communiquées. The Federal government denies 'knowing' about it.
1973 of the agents provocateurs in fabricated FLQ cells, Devault specifically is no longer an Agent Provocateur but a regular spy (infiltration, information).
1972-73 Operation Ham, 44 RCMP agents organize the  theft of the 60 000 name list of Parti Quebecois members. Prepared in late 1972 the operation takes place in january 1973. RCMP receives assistance from CIA and form Chicago operative for computer data tapes transfer assistance. (as aknowledged by Gilbert Albert, RCMP special section in the 70s). This operation was illegal since the PQ was an officially recognized political party.
1974 Bomb explosion in Westmount orchestrated by an RCMP. A RCMP agent, Security Service Corporal Robert Samson is wounded in the operation and is arrest by police. His identity is revealed which triggers Royal Commissions into RCMP activity.
1992 Claude Morin prominent member of the PQ aknowledges that he was(back then) a double agent working for the RCMP
It could also be that yet, there is no proof around the fact that the RCMP did anything, but also that the government wanted to keep it all covered up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawtliam (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCMP staged terrorist acts 

message: As a non-Canadian reader of the article, it would help me to know what specific protections were removed by the invocation of the Act, i.e., what normally would happen that did not. Hope this comment is helpful. --Gary D 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of War Measures Act 

message: I changed "most serious terrorist attack in Canadian history" to "most serious terrorist attack on Canadian soil". The Air India bombing caused far more loss of life, although I supposed it could be argued that it didn't cause as much of a stir as the October Crisis. --LeeHunter 13:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Serious Attack 

message: Abbreviate the timeline and move it to the bottom; incoporate removed parts as prose. Also "sectionize" this—it rambles. Marskell 17:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: See Talk:CCOTW. Zhatt 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for CCOTW 

message: Since this the contribution of the week, could someone else review the revert that Marc Allaire had made to my contribution about this subject. He never answered back and other people decision would be appreciated (even if it goes against what I wrote)--Marc pasquin 18:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of people arrested, part 2 

message: What this article fails to mention is the lack the explanation of the October Crisis' impact on media, including the films made about the crisis, or set during the time period. --TcDohl 15:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  October Crisis in the media? 

message: I changed the wording around a bit for the October 16th bullet point, no one actually asked for the War Measures Act to be implemented, and the sourcing was wrong on one of the quotes. It should be alright now, although feel free to change it, I put in the source. Endos 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 16th 

message: Perhaps someone might like to go through the page and either put accents on letters where appropriate, or remove them all entirely (I support the former). The way it is, though, e.g., sometimes Québec, sometimes Quebec, sometimes Montréal, sometimes Montreal, is both common in this article and unduly inconsistent.
I do not know French, though, so I'm no authority on what accents go where. 24.141.76.6 05:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was only one accent out of place that I saw (now fixed). The normal practice (here and elsewhere) is to use the English names Quebec and Montreal rather than the French names Québec and Montréal.  However, when the words are part of a longer proper name that has no official English version (like Sûreté du Québec or Journal de Montréal), the accents stay. Indefatigable 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents? 

message: Merely stating that Canadians in and out of Quebec overwhelmingly favored the instituting of the War Measures Act doesn't make that true. I hope that those citations and various others are added to corroborate the statements made in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.30.180 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a citation missing 

message: I have assessed this as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, although it does need more in-line citations and referencing. I have assessed this as high importance, as I feel that this topic plays a vital role in understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: This whole article is the standard ROC version of October 70. Has anyone from Quebec actually reviewed this?
Not even a single word about the Keable Commission? Come on...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.160.106 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously biased

message: :Image:LiberationCellSurrender.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LiberationCellSurrender.jpg

message: :Image:OctoberCrisis-WTetleyBookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:OctoberCrisis-WTetleyBookcover.jpg

message: I was automatically redirected to this page from a search on "Black October". It should be considered to create a disambiguation page for the term "Black October" because this is a common term for the events of the Gas War in Bolivia/El Alto in 2003 that left twelve dead and scores wounded. Black October (Octobre Negro) is a landmark event in Bolivian history. See entry on Bolivian gas conflict.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havardh (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done.  I added the 2000 film Black October about the October crisis, and a mention of the October 2008 financial crisis (also sometimes called Black October) for good measure. --Saforrest (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider disambiguation page 

message: I am removing this sentence from the article: "Following that crisis, under Prime Minister Trudeau's directions, this led to a series of scandals surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, particularly to the RCMP's illegal break-in to steal the Parti Québécois's member list in its offices in 1973."  Look at the first three words of the sentence: "Following that crisis".  The article is about the October crisis, not about RCMP 'break ins' which were said to occur, by the admission of whoever added this to the article, in 1973; well after the "October Crisis".  I would suggest if you think this is important to put into Wikipedia that you create a stand alone article for that incident as it is not related to the October crisis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.9.107 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing RCMP Break In 

message: I just made an attempt to expand and rephrase to lead to more accurately reflect the implications of the events, and to hopefully add some balance to the lead.  It isn't perfect, but I hope it is a starting/continuing point for further improvement.    user:j    (aka justen)   12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More balanced lead

message: At the bottom of the first section there is a message that says: HEY ITS SCOTT, IM SO IN LOVE WITH YOU AND I HOPE YOU NO IT, I JUST WITH I DIDNT SEE YOU AT THAT PARTY WITH THAT PIPE IN UR HAND.....<3 Which is not relevant to the subject, should it be deleted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.221.23 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate message 

message: The article currently asserts in the section October Crisis#War Measures Act and military involvement, 5th paragraph, that the military was conducting searches and making arrests along with the police. This contradicts other parts of the article which assert that the military was mobilized only to guard sensitive areas, and that only the police made arrests.
I strongly suspect that passage in question is in error, but since it is cited, I am reluctant to edit without checking. Does anyone still have access to the source to confirm it actually says the Canadian Forces had authority to arrest civilians and actually did so?
Citation: Tetley, William. "The Importance of the Quebec "October Crisis, 1970" to the "Quiet Revolution" in the Province of Quebec (and the rest of Canada (ROC) as well)". McGill University. Retrieved 24 January 2014. Indefatigable (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army searching and arresting 

message: "the majority of those [detainees] interviewed after had little cause to complain"
That's an opinion. They might not have complained, of course, and that would be fair reporting. Some might even have "commented on the courteous nature of the interrogations and searches", and to say so would be fair reporting, if quantified. But to say that they had "little cause to complain" is an interpretation; one that does not appear to have been shared by the provincial government since "the Quebec Ombudsman, Louis Marceau, was instructed to hear complaints of detainees, and the Quebec government agreed to pay damages to any person unjustly arrested."
In fact, William Tetley states in his book "October Crisis 1970: An Insider's View" that "[d]etainee complaints filed with Marceau increased from 95 on 20 January 1971 to 171 on 12 March and 238 on 6 July 1971. Of those 238 complaints, Marceau found 103 justified and meriting compensation."
See also the July 6, 1971, entry in http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.93.165 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little cause to complain? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on October Crisis. 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/20070213235102/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hl8BdnQR?url=http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/crisis/ to https://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/crisis/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213235102/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430094607/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/docs/october/letters.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/docs/october/letters.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was this really a part of the Cold War or is that an error? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Cold War = Canada vs USSR -- no that was not a factor & not mentioned in article.  I droppd that claim & kept "Quebec sovereignty movement" Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of the Cold War? 

message: Laporte was the deputy premier and should be refer to as such.
The fact that the media refer to him as Labour minister is irrelevant. An encyclopedia is not meant to do the media's bidding.
As far as I can tell his Labour portfolio had nothing to do with his kidnapping and the fact that he was the second ranking member of the government makes it all the more significant.
In fact I read somewhere that Laporte was Acting Premier when he was kidnapped as Bourassa was away on holiday. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte 

message: In the timeline: "Controversially, police reports not released to the public until 2010 state that Pierre Laporte was accidentally killed during a struggle."  Looking at the link, it appears to be a biographer's claims of information held by the Quebec government.  It appears that the biographer also had claims about the ability of the Quebec government to prevent it, something that does not appear to be endorsed by this page.  While the disputed circumstances of Pierre Laporte's death may be worth documentation in a section, I don't think sufficient evidence has been presented (eg: the actual police reports) to incorporate it into the main timeline.  Also, no articles were posted to support the word "Controversially" or to confirm that there were "police reports ... released to the public".  Unfortunately, after a quick Google search, I was not able to find English articles on the matter and my French isn't good enough to skim the Google summaries to figure out relevance. --Forgottenlord (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre Laporte's accidental death? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :October Crisis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Pearson rebukes De Gaulle":
From Vive le Québec libre: 
From Charles de Gaulle: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:October Crisis]] 

message: The current infobox used is Template:Infobox military conflict. Would anyone object if I switched to Template:Infobox civil conflict, which I believe is more appropriate? BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox