Talk:Grand River (Ontario)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
[edit] Factual Dispute Tag
I cleaned up a few obvious native historical "clangers" to start, but this section needs serious attention. I'll try to get back to it myself when I have time. Deconstructhis 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Reverting of The Edit In The History Section
I didn't revert the edit because the material you removed isn't redundant in some ways, which is fairly obvious if you read the section as a whole. The entire history section of this article is still in very bad shape in my opinion, I'd suggest that its got non NPOV issues in several spots, the tone it's written in and choice of words seem somewhat "chatty" and unencyclopedic to me and worst of all it continues to contain, what I'd argue, are historical inaccuracies in some places. Instead of editing out the paragraph that was removed today, which contained a link to a map, as well as an internal link to the ongoing Caledonia land dispute, a subject quite relevant in the Grand Valley these days, I'd like to see the entire history section itself brought up to a higher standard. In my opinion, from a historical perspective, the article itself would benefit more if some of the earlier comments in it regarding the acquisition of the land by the Six Nations were edited out and replaced by the material that was removed today. As I said back in August, I'm willing to work on this article myself as time allows, but in my opinion it doesn't make sense removing content that's not only relevant and contains references, it's actually of a higher quality than what remains. Deconstructhis 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move Content
I would recommend that post 1784 content relating to the Grand River Indian reserve be removed and relocated to Six Nations 40, Ontario where I think it rightly belongs. I have also being added relevant content at Haldimand Proclamation. BradMajors 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you mean literally that *all* content regarding native issues in the Grand Valley, post 1784, should be removed and contextualized somewhere else, I'd have to say that I'm not in agreement with that position. I can see how it would be possible to reduce the amount of detail regarding those matters in the present article without substantially damaging the overall value of it, however I am solidly against simply moving to another article, all material relating to the activities of natives in the valley post 1784.Deconstructhis 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let me reword my comment: There are multiple articles which contain duplicate and contradictory information concerning early land ownership issues in the Grand Valley. A traditional approach where content is relevant to multiple articles is for each of the articles to contain a summary of the content and for each of them to link to a common article for detailed information. BradMajors 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
