User talk:Logical Intervention

August 2023

Hello, I'm FenrisAureus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Inuttitut without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to NunatuKavut. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of what I disagree with. It's about printing accurate information. Wikipedia is a resource site where people go to learn and become informed. They are not being informed if what they are reading is misinformation under the guise of censorship. They become ill-informed, and as a result it's a disservice. It's impossible to change from mixed-bloods to full-bloods over a twenty five year period, as Nunatukavut has. So, why print stating that they did? Nunatukavut can't factually verify their claims, because those claims have been fabricated. Logical Intervention (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting 55 https://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=623659&globalStreamId=3 11:11:25 Senator Dennis Patterson to Nunatukavut: You have not achieved overlap agreements as set out in the 2019 MOU in fact, there have been no discussions. You haven’t even got an MOU on your desire to have your rights recognized with the crown. You are also, this is public information, you’re in litigation with the Innu Nation on this very question. So, my question is, is it not premature to enshrine in law rights that are reserved for traditional land users like the Innu Nation, and Nunatsiavut to your group?

What Senator Patterson said here is 100% correct, supported by facts. Nunatukavut are not Section 35 rights holders, and therefore not Aboriginal Inuit. It's been established in the Senate of Canada. Logical Intervention (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this fact, all Nunatukavut information should be removed from Wikipedia. Logical Intervention (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusSholto, "Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness". Then proceeds to revert without justification on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Therefore, censor and suppress the truth so those printing and spreading misinformation aren't offended. It's both immoral and illogical. Recognize first, then verify later. Logical Intervention (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After having your edits reverted by multiple editors, the next step should be discussion on Talk:NunatuKavut. You haven't discussed your edits on the appropriate pages. What you have written above is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits being reverted by multiple editors without justification doesn't make it less credible. In fact, with all due respect, it makes the editors ignorant, which explains the need for truth and understanding, not suppression of it. What do you mean by "Original research"? This is fact based research. What you and multiple editors are doing is pushing who they wish to be, and not who they really are. It's both immoral and deceptive. If it was really about the truth and integrity of Wikipedia, it would be verify first, then recognize later. Logical Intervention (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is not the removal of their viewpoint but the adding of the opposing viewpoint. Not yours, mine or any other Wikipedia editors viewpoint, but what reliable sources say about it. I believe that ITK have spoken out against NunatuKavut. That's the sort of thing that should be added and is how Wikipedia works.

The fact that NunatuKavut is not considered Inuit should be pointed out but not by you interpreting what Dennis Patterson said. Above you quoted him and then stated that NunatuKavut were not Section 35 rights holders, but Dennis didn't say that, so it's original research.

The attempts at removing of material that you disagree with and use of derogatory, almost racist, terms such as mixed-blood makes it hard to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and gives the impression that you are on a mission (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs). CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is the removal of all woke Liberal editors from Wikipedia who are censoring and suppressing information, including credible sources such as Senators, because they are triggered by such terms as mixed-bloods. The truth, the facts don't care about opinions and emotions.

Nunatukavut president, Todd Russell, stated that Nunatukavut members are primarily "mix-bloods". However, not racist = Liberal privilege. Todd Russell is almost racist, but because he is Liberal, his Liberal privilege prevents him from being racist. See how this works. My only mission is to ensure that the TRUTH is printed, to accurately reflect our history. It's how we respect our ancestors. By accurate historic representation of them. Logical Intervention (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suppressing information except for you. I'm more than happy to have the views of my senator, ITK, and any other reliable sources included in opposition to the idea that NunatuKavut is Inuit. I agree that NunatuKavut is not Inuit based on information that I have read. However, I'm not on a mission that involves removing information. Articles have to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and that involves presenting the information based on what Wikipedia:Reliable sources have to say. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's racist for me to question Nunatukavut members ancestry and history, then it is racist for Nunatukavut to question their members ancestry and history, while they are filing for membership which explains why West St. Modeste is an "Inuit" community under Nunatukavut territory. West. St. Modeste (french name) an Inuit community with 100% non-Aboriginal identity. 0 Inuks, but Inuit just because. If you question it, then you are almost racist. Prove that Nunatukavut are Inuit, or remove the information as I have, as a result of them no being Inuit. If not, then you are demonstrating that it's recognize first, then verify later. Logical Intervention (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was "racist for me to question Nunatukavut members ancestry and history" you just made that up. What you are being called out on is the wholesale deletion of material. I don't have to prove that NunatuKavut is Inuit anymore than you have to prove they are not. Having the material on Wikipedia does not indicate that the encyclopedia is recognizing NunatuKavut as legitimate just that some people are making a particular claim. That can be countered with those that have voiced their disagreement and be included in the article.

As to the offensive term mixed-bloods. I live in Cambridge Bay and there are many Inuit, registered beneficiaries, who have mixed parentage. That is one parent is Inuk and the other is non-Inuk. Your use of the term gives the impression that you feel they are not "real Inuit" This is similar to how Natan Obed and others are sometimes said to not be "real Inuit" because they lost their language. That sort of lateral violence and has been a contributing factor in suicides. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the discussion. It's not a question of how I feel, it's the matter of what it is. Aboriginals are defined as original (first) occupiers of the land prior to the European arrival. In Canada, those two groups are the Inuit, and First Nations Indians. "Real Inuit" are Inuit with both Inuk (full-blooded) parents (no mix), as they were before the Europeans arrived. The fact that they are mixed tells us that they are post-contact, and therefore not Inuit or Aboriginal.

To say that Metis (a mix of European and First Nations Indians, which they claimed before Inuit) is Aboriginal is to say that the Europeans were here mixing with the First Nations Indians, before they (Europeans) themselves arrived. It's a logical fallacy that further causes confusion. It's also to say that Europeans are Aboriginal in Canada because they were here mixing with the First Nation Indians, again, before they (Europeans) themselves arrived.

If they are in their rooms pretending to be rock stars, then that's fine. However, when they come out and pretend to be Aboriginal and take funds and benefits that are reserved for Aboriginals without justification, it is not only not right, it's criminal fraud. Lending a voice under the guise of censorship is aiding in fraud. I did make it up. It's called formulating a logical argument. Logical Intervention (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What language did they lose? Michif - the Metis language? How did the dialect of Nunatukavummiutut go extinct, when Nunatukavut only came into being in 2010? Prior to that they were Metis speaking Michif.

Nunatukavut timeline:

1985 - Labrador Metis Association. 1998 - Labrador Metis Nation. 1998-2010 - Labrador Inuit-Metis. 2010 - Nunatukavut Inuit. Again, which language did they lose, Michif? Logical Intervention (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be concocting you own person definition of who is Inuk. Who is defined as Inuk is regulated by the various Inuit organisations throughout Inuit Nunangat (Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut. They seem to be happy enough to include children of mixed parents, including the descendants of Christian Klengenberg (including my kids and grandkids), the Porters from Gjoa Haven, the Mannings of eastern Nunavut, the Bankslands, Nellie Cournoyea, Jordin Tootoo, and the list goes on.

The bit about Métis is a red herring as that was not being discussed.

For the language I was referring to Natan Obed, who I guess under your odd definition is not really an Inuk. See here where it mentions him ""not being Inuk enough," for not speaking Inuktitut fluently, and for growing up in the United States." I was also talking about the lateral violence that many people from Nunavut, especially younger people and those living in the western Arctic are subjected to because they lost their language. The language was was Inuttitut / Inuktitut / Inuinnaqtun CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They seem to be happy enough to include children of mixed parents, including the descendants of Christian Klengenberg (including my kids and grandkids)". I respect that they include them, and that's how it should be. However, those children with mixed parents shouldn't be going out and starting Inuit governments. As for Natan Obed, the fact that he is mixed, tells us that he is post-contact, and therefore not Inuit. Speaking Inuktitut doesn't make one Inuk, just as an Inuk learning to speak English doesn't make him European. Logical Intervention (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be concocting the argument that if you mix Russian vodka with fresh milk 50/50, then you get fresh milk and only fresh milk. Logical Intervention (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting all of my edits because of emotional reasons, not because it's factual. What you are doing is depriving people of seeing the truth because of your personal feelings. You can revert all of my edits because your feelings got hurt. That's fine. However, all you are doing is a disservice to those you are claiming to help. In a sane world when the truth is introduced then the incorrect information is removed.

Not with you, apparently, keep showing the incorrect information, just because. And to further confuse people. As you have mentioned, it's not up to me to prove that they aren't, and it's not up to you to prove that they are. It's up to them, as they are the ones that put up the claims, that since have been proven to be incorrect. That incorrect information should be taken down until, they "Nunatukavut that made the claims can justify their claims factually. Logical Intervention (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that NunatuKavut is not considered Inuit should be pointed out but not by you interpreting what Dennis Patterson said. Above you quoted him and then stated that NunatuKavut were not Section 35 rights holders, but Dennis didn't say that, so it's original research".

You are 100% correct. Dennis Patterson didn't say that. Because the Senate of Canada doesn't have the right to determine ancestry, and as a result are not allowed to say if they are or aren't. However, he clearly demonstrated that they weren't. Determination is up to Aboriginal groups, which is why the federal government told President Todd Russell (Metis) that they had to join the Inuit or the First Nations Indians. Which is why they are now Nunatukavut. Not because of their ancestry, but because of their political representation. Nunatukavut filed four land claims and failed because they are not Aboriginal, yet we don't see that here in the article. So you don't censor them for misinformation because of censorship, yet you censors me because of censorship? Logical Intervention (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway take your concerns to Talk:NunatuKavut and discuss with other editors. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]