Talk:North-West Rebellion

message: This sentence doesn't seem to work: Despite some notable early victories every body turned in to a newt shriveled up and died. Can someone check?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.193 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently rounded out the list with Fort Pitt and Loon Lake. I'm very pleased with the way the NW Rebellion campaign structure has taken shape thanks to the productive harmony of independent efforts. Albrecht 20:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the pieces are coming together, but the article itself still needs much work to weave together the political and military elements.  My intention has always been to turn my attention to this, but only now do I feel like I'm recovering from the marathon effort to get Louis Riel into shape.  Perhaps its time to start work on this article in ernest, and aim for featured status in a month or two... Are you up for such a collaboration? Fawcett5 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Founder" means to fill with water and sink.  It is the correct metaphor in this context. Indefatigable 14:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: (I don't know how to do it properly, nor do I know very well how to edit in Wikipedia, or I would make changes): Riel was exiled for five years beginning in 1870, though he returned to Canada several times during the five years. When the exile period was up, he chose to remain in the U.S., becoming a schoolteacher in Montana. I don't think any of these North-West Rebellion articles is very good. There are quite a number of factual errors and lack of context. Rod Macleod and I wrote the standard text about the rebellion, "Prairie Fire: the 1885 North-West Rebellion." If anyone is interested, I can be contacted at yeoldepoges@hotmail.com. 13:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The external link is dead and I am removing it. The link was http://web.mala.bc.ca/davies/letters.images/W.F.Stewart/collection.page.htm .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.182.204 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Proposed merger of Looting of Battleford into the history section of Battleford, Saskatchewan please comment if you have an opinion one way or t'other.  Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Looting of Battleford]]

message: I read somewhere that the United States offered to help riel but he declined is this true? Or was it the Red River Rebellion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.25.63 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: Why is the term "Dominion of Canada" used repeatedly in this article?  Isn't "Canada" sufficiently descriptive? fishhead64 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dominion of Canada" was the accepted term until the 1960s I do believe, and then was legally changed to "Canada" with the Canada Act of 1982. Canada was the first of the 'Dominions' or autonomous colonies that gained a measure of independence from Britain until becoming full partners with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. So anytime from 1867 to 1931 it is fair to use the term 'Dominion of Canada' McMuff (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unnecessarily clunky, and contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).  Therefore, it should be removed. fishhead64 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming conventions say "If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used". In a historical context, the title "Dominion of Canada" is still valid. Therefore, it does not contradict Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) McMuff (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That naming convention wouldn't really apply here because the Dominion of Canada and Canada are the same place with the same English name, simply Canada. It's not the same as, say, Upper and Lower Canada, or a place like Biafra for example. "Dominion of Canada" was an official long form name, but we don't need to use it every time. If it is absolutely necessary (and I don't agree that it is), we can use "Dominion of Canada" the first time, and "Canada" thereafter. Similarly, we don't say "Louis Riel" every time, "Riel" is sufficient. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it doesn't have to be used every time, but the edit eliminated all use of the word 'Dominion' from the article. I think that the use of the title 'Dominion of Canada', to reflect the semi-independent federation of British territories that was Canada in 1885, just once is a good way to disambiguate the 1867-1931 use of 'Canada' from say 'Canada' as a colony in New France, The Province of Canada of 1841-1867, or even our current setup. McMuff (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is disingenuous to claim that there would be any ambiguity concerning the entity in question.  The nation called Canada came into being in 1867, and there is no reason for the article to allude, in even an oblique way, to the political evolution of that entity's self-government.  As far as I know, Canada is as much a "dominion" now as it was in 1867, although the preferred contemporary nomenclature is Commonwealth realm. fishhead64 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Canada is described as being a Dominion in the preamble of the BNA Act. However the sense of Canada being a 'Dominion' in terms of it's relationship to Britain ceased to be true after the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and especially true after declaring war on Germany on its own in 1939. The use of the term 'Dominion of Canada' was used in government documents until the 1950s, and the Constituion Act of 1982 just mentions Canada, but still has the BNA Act as a part. I just thought the term 'Dominion of Canada' was a fair description of pre-1931 Canada, reflecting both naming practices and its relation to the Crown, and that's it. I resent the accusation of bad faith.McMuff (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I never made an accusation of bad faith, and I resent the accusation that I did ;) fishhead64 (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion

message: I came here to refresh my recollection of the North-West or Riel's Rebellion and, on reading, am struck by the incredible lack of sourcing for a fairly detailed article and one that is important to Canadian history. The Background section doesn't have a single citation until a third of the way through its 5th paragraph and no paragraph beyond that contains any citation until one reaches the Legacy section. (None of the texts regarding the battles/campaigns are sourced.)
And, from the tone and tenor, much of its first 4 paragraphs in the Background are either copy-pasted from somewhere or are originally written - the 3rd paragraph in particular lacks encyclopedic style:
"It is important to note this district expanded mostly to the north and doubled it's size during 1818 to 1889- it was a growing area that expanded. This is important to understand the dynamics of the Rebbellion in this area, as this area was already defining itself by an initial, legally tolerated expansion. Censorship being what it is, perhaps the pioneers simply wanted a third expansion and were denied- leading to the rebellion that occured. Would it be unusual to question if the conflict could have been avoided? The first expansion was legally successful. The first expansion didn't cause Ottawa to send in troops. History of this place and era are very obscure- a lot happened in a very short time that is missed in modern understanding." (emphasis added) Irish Melkite (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed those non-encyclopedic passages that were added on Sept. 1. But the bigger issue of shortage of references still needs to be addressed. Indefatigable (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The Legacy section (which is very well-sourced - the only section of which that can be said) is poorly named. It is essentially a list, written in prose form to accommodate a bit of explanation here and there, of historical sites, monuments, memorials. That is not what a legacy is. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: This section and the article's heading table state the belligerents to have been Canada, Provisional Government of Saskatchewan, Métis and Cree–Assiniboine. The Province of Saskatchewan did not exist for another 20 years. Surely that belligerent should be identified as the North-West Territories. Masalai (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Saskatchewan in the Provisional Government of Saskatchewan must mean the old District of Saskatchewan (1882-1905) of the North-West Territories. The page could use a better map of this old district for example the following map at;  Map of Battle Sites. Kayoty (talk)  .Kayoty 07:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Belligerents" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North-West Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607215636/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002956 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002956
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081210201056/http://www.sicc.sk.ca:80/saskindian/a02win15.htm to http://www.sicc.sk.ca/saskindian/a02win15.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This ("the Poundmaker Historical Centre and Big Bear monument erected by cairn erected by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada") part of the last paragraph of the Memorials section is not clear to me. I can't correct it because I'm not sure what it is supposed to say. Even assuming it says exactly what it means to say, the style is clumsy and needs improvement. Jergas (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph in Memorials section lacks clarity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on North-West Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203185449/http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/scrip1.jsp to http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/scrip1.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021102620/http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=3ceddf25-86ef-4433-86ea-cfe3cc69472d to http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=3ceddf25-86ef-4433-86ea-cfe3cc69472d
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605122715/http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/ab/sites/lhn-nhs1.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/ab/sites/lhn-nhs1.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605063141/http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/recherche-search_e.asp?s=1 to http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/recherche-search_e.asp?s=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526144045/http://www.mountieshop.com/new/history.asp to http://www.mountieshop.com/new/history.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050824200020/http://www.sasktourism.com/default.asp?Page=175&menu=52 to http://www.sasktourism.com/default.asp?Page=175&menu=52
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) 11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article says: In 1884, the Métis (including the Anglo-Métis) asked Louis Riel to return from the United States, where he had fled after the Red River Rebellion, to appeal to the government on their behalf.[10] The government gave a vague response. The person who was asked for something was Louis Riel; it was not the government. How is it that the government, rather than Louis Riel, is reported to be resonding to the request? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague pair of sentences