Talk:High Arctic relocation

Balance

This article could use a little balancing, for instance to note the dire situation of the Inuit in Nunavik, facing starvation and totally dependent on welfare at the time. Right now it reads as an inexplicable and unforgivable crime. That may be apparent with the benefit of hindsight, but the situation is not so clear as this article makes it out to be. An excellent treatment of this can be found in Tammarniit (mistakes) (F. Tester, P. Kolchyski). A large part of the book is online. Franamax (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I can't see the book text your link points to. I agree with the main point, that another side of the case can be made (ie the white administrators had their reasons) but I do not have access to the sources to make it. Even MM's book explains some of the RCMP/Ottawa rationale, but alas it has gone back to the library. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a link earlier that seemed to indicate that not all the administrators were Qallunaaq and that at least one was Inuk. Of course I can't get the exact same search term into Google now, so it will have to wait until I go home again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I read somewhere about how the Grise Fiord ones benefitted from an Inuk constable who had already been there. Here are more useful google book sources. [1], [2], [3] for the article.
• I would like to propose "High arctic relocations" (or some variation thereof) as the title of this article. Per WP:NAME, it seems to be the most commonly used term, and was included in the name of the Royal Commission on the affair. What do people think?--Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re the name, that seems moving in the right direction (excuse the pun). One caveat is that similar events might have happened outside of Canada that we (I) know nothing of: Alaska, Greenland, Siberia. Presumably, if such were discovered, they might be bundled here, and later redistributed by country? That's a theoretical point. But more practically, couldn't "relocations" take in all sorts of population movements, from Dorset Culture to the Qallunaat influx to Nunavut? "Forced" would make the point more clearly, but I know there is objection to that. "Cold War" puts it in context. Other ideas? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link and I misread what it said about her being a administrator. Of course non of that is usable anyway. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating to read! And congrats on digging that up! Why do you think it unuseable? If you can find the publication in another format (not a listserve), then it is OK, isn't it? The news article is usable as is, and the editorial and letters count as testimony of opposing views. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to find the editorials but I'm not sure about the letter. Even if found, there is nothing to say who it is. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

It's strange that the title "Human flagpoles" is never explained, nor even mentioned, in the article. Also that title is extremely POV, presupposing that the only motivation was a sovereignty exercise. We need to find something more neutral. How about "Inuit settlement relocation"? That way the article can be eventually expanded to cover less controversial relocation incidents. Indefatigable (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned (though not explained) until this afternoon, when I boldly made some edits, waiting for a name change till we get some consensus. But I do agree that it needs to be moved and think I will rename it as I suggested to High arctic relocation, which seems to be the most common name by which this particular episode is known. If people want to do the legwork to cover other Inuit resettlements then it can always be moved again, of course. --Slp1 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too late for now, but interesting discussion here on items to include. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"One of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada"

I have been doing some research into the relocations with the hope of expanding this article. I have already made a brief start, as you can see. I have access to newspaper archives not available on the web, and have been looking at the newspaper reports that came out at the same time as the Royal Commission report. I have been somewhat surprised to note that the quoted phrase "one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada" appears nowhere in any of the contemporaneous reports: I would have thought that such strong statement would have been extensively quoted in the media at the time of the report, but it was not, either then or subsequently. Nor is it included in any books etc that I have google searched. Other searches suggest that this phrase, attributed to the Royal Commission, begins to appear on the internet only after Melanie McGrath's book appeared in 2006, often is quoted in reviews of her book.[4] I am starting to wonder if this quote is accurate. I think we need to check out the Report itself to confirm that this statement is made. Does anybody have access to it? I may be able to check myself in a week or two, but if anybody else can help check it would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I had seen something that seemed to indicate that the "head" of the commission was the originator of the quote. Though I don't know if that means René Dussault or Georges Erasmus or some other person associated with the commission. That would be somewhat different than an official statement from the commission. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the link, The Morning Star. However, it's a bit confusing as it says the 1993 commission but it was formed in 1991 and reported in 1996. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's very interesting, thanks very much. I now see from a snippet view of McGrath's book that it was Dussault [5], but from the snippet I can't figure out the date or the context that this remark was made. Given the lack of any reference to this pre-McGrath, I can't believe that it was made close in time to release of the report. I will try and locate a copy of the book and check what's up, which should be doable fairly soon. In any case it seems clear that it wasn't the Royal Commission per se, which is very important, so the remark should be properly attributed. Depending on the context, we should then decide how notable a comment it is for this and the other pages it has been included on, don't you think? BTW, I have been communing with many Northerners recently, and felt very tempted to ask one of them who had spent time in Cambridge if they knew you. But decided it would sound rather silly! --Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment seems to be notable but that may just be because it's taken on a life of its own and is mainly attributed to the commission. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you guys are really, truly, not going to believe this. I went to the library today, and copied down the relevant part of the book. McGrath says "The Ottawa Citizen printed [on April 6 1993] a quotation from the co-chairman of the Commission, Rene Dussault, calling the High Arctic relocation "one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada". The paper went on to quote Dussault's co-chair, Bertha Wilson, telling the committee that ""can not fail to be outraged by the injustice (or) not be grieved by the pain and suffering that you and your relatives have been exposed to..".

• I have access to the full Ottawa Citizen archive, and there is indeed an Ottawa Citizen article that quotes Bertha Wilson saying this ("Panel denounces `cruel' Inuit relocation: Jack Aubry. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Apr 10, 1993.)
• But there is no quote from Dussault, in that or any article in the Ottawa Citizen with the quote about the "worst human rights violations". What there is in an article by reporter Jack Aubry (Stories from exile; Inuit tell commission of lies, broken promises, the Ottawa Citizen. Apr 6, 1993. p. A1) where Jack Aubry says that it "may be judged one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada". This is confirmed by the Edmonton Journal on April 10, 1993, which says that "Descriptions of the conditions the Inuit encountered led Ottawa Citizen reporter Jack Aubry to comment: "What the High Arctic exiles were told in 1953 may be judged one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada."

I suggest we remove the "worst human rights violations" misquote from all the articles in Wikipedia asap. Do all agree?

BTW the funny thing is that I am not really surprised: somehow it seemed a very unlikely thing for someone in that position to say. --Slp1 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for digging into the archives so diligently. It is footwork like this that strengthens Wikipedia. And the transparency of the process! These talkpages are a goldmine.

As for the phrase itself, it stuck in my memory and was part of what pushed me to create the article (or at least, to create it at that moment). I'm very glad we have the article, but yes, of course, the phrase, since it is only a comment by a non-notable person, should be removed from here, and other places where I (or others) may have inserted it. I will do my best to find them now. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done to the best of my ability, though I am growing tired and couldn't think of great rewordings. See Special:Contributions/BrainyBabe if you want to check if I've missed any. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work both of you. I wonder if it is possible to include the quote and who said it in this article without going into OR. It might be possible to say something like

"In her book The Long Exile Melanie McGrath quotes co-chair René Dussault as saying it was "...one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada...". In the Ottawa Citizen April 6, 1993, reporter Jack Aubry said that it "may be judged one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada"."

Both statements can be sourced and even though Aubry is a minor character the quote has a life of its own and appears to be attributed to the wrong person but it's up to the reader to decide. What can't be said in the article is that McGrath got it wrong. Slp1, above you wrote "...paper went on to quote Dussault's co-chair, Bertha Wilson, telling...". Was that only in the book or did you also see it in the paper. The reason I'm curious is that according to A Word from Commissioners Dussault and Erasmus were the co-chairs and Wilson was a memeber of the commission. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I would go with Brainybabe's deletion solution. I agree that the quote seems to have a life of its own on the internet, (though not elsewhere, in printed text) and I wouldn't want to give it more currency, even in the context you describe. The only thing that might be doable would be to include a section about the media got involved in the process: Jack Aubry was a very strident voice in drawing attention to the situation, and there is some reliable sourcing for this, I believe. Then we could include the quote from Aubry, just to make the point, and obliquely correct the error, perhaps?

You have sharp eyes, CBW! You are right to be curious: the Citizen article doesn't mention that she was a co-chair, and in fact correctly states that she was a commissioner. McGrath's research abilities don't seem that strong, do they, based on two errors in just these few sentences? --Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like CBW's solution, of including the phrase with clear attribution. Do we have a direct quote from Dussault, or just McGrath's quotation of him? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I really can't say how strongly I disagree with the idea of giving McGrath's mistake anymore airplay. I see no advantages and many disadvantages in repeating something that we know for a fact to be incorrect. Silence (or adding a citation with the correct attribution) is the best response, I feel. --Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a direct quote from Dussault (e.g. from a newspaper, not from McGrath), let's include it. Adding a citation with correct attribution is a good way ahead. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There's no quote from Dussault in the Citizen article that has the "worst human rights violations" in it. He's not even mentioned. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If a commissioner or otherwise significant person said it, the quote should be included. If a journalist said it, it should be left out. IMHO. The latter appears to be the case. So, given that I've removed the phrase from the places where I originally placed it, I suggest we leave things as they are. (Forgot to add my name: BrainyBabe (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Good, I think we are agreed then! I'll try and find some more information for the article etc at some point soon.--Slp1 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede

May or may not be worthy of a new section header - anyway, I've added a new paragraph [6] to the lede to attempt a summarization of the issues which I believe can all be found in the article body. Please hack away at it!! Franamax (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(Note especially that I managed to use "people" four times in the same short paragraph - that is seriously lame writing people!) Franamax (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per CBW's change - fair enough, polar is ambiguous, although Canada does set the context. I've a similar problem though with "Arctic", which implies the entire north polar region, as opposed to the opposite pole. I'm making another change, to which I declare absolutely no allegiance, just seeing how it looks. We can rely (for now) on Arctic archipelago as a defintive Wikipedia term for the region, though I'm not inclined to use it. This ultimately needs to reflect the tenuous nature of Canada's claims at the time - Great Britain gave it to us, but no-one ever really said they were allowed to give it away either. It really did, and does, come down to whose bootprints are in the snow. A fascinating story which needs to be properly elaborated, sooner or later. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous sentence

Quote: The settlements were near to military outposts, e.g. Canadian Forces Services Alert, which were instrumental in the Distant Early Warning Line, set up to intercept radio signals from the USSR.

• First of all define "near"
• The DEW line was 100s of km south of the islands in question
• Alert was a listening post yes, but the DEW line was NOT a listen post system, it was a radar system
• Alert is not part of the DEW line

--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs for the lede

Hi, just tagged the lede as this article appears to be well-written and well referenced but the claim and counter-claim in the lede's second paragraph really should be reffed. Could someone who knows the subject/sources correctly ref the two conflicting claims in the lede? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of Settlements?

The para on "the move" refers to three locations, but it appears there were two, called Grise Fiord and Resolute? Hugo999 (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-wording

In the "New communities" section towards the end the following statement appears: "Flaherty did not attempt to help the families, most likely as he had died in 1951, prior to the relocation". This seems a slightly odd statement, while he very well may not have helped them in any event, his being dead was certainly an absolute bar to providing any help. I am going to reword it as ",however, Flaherty had died in 1951, prior to the relocation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.6.2.254 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Major changes regarding motive

I made a major edit eliminating false balance from the analysis of the motive of the transfer.

This should be reviewed and/or discussed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)