Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School

Removed text

"In 1962, the dancers were awarded the Norman Day Confederation Life shield, after taking the first three places in an under-18 folk dancing competition at the Okanagan Music Festival.

Trying for WP:DUE. Currently article lists awards then right at the end casually mentions physical abuse. Will need more work, but currently cutting this paragraph.

Western Standard

@Fluorescent Jellyfish: I have reverted some (not all) of your removal of content sourced to the Western Standard. What is your basis for claiming it is not a reliable source? Riposte97 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In real life I research disinformation, misinformation, and the Canadian far-right. I'm familiar with the Western Standard from my work.

But anyways, as it states in the page you linked about Wikipedia's guidelines for determining reliable sources, sources such as newspapers (which Western Standard would be counted as) have certain caveats relating to reliability. The page states that news reporting from "well established outlets" can often be considered reliable for statements of fact - Western Standard is not well-established; it was 're-established' in 2019 (see it's own About page: [1]) by disgraced right-wing politician Derek Hildebrandt, having originally been established in 2004 by extreme-far-right figure Ezra Levant.[2]

But far, far more than not being well-established - it is a far-right[3] misinformation outlet.[4] It frequently publishes racist, transphobic, and homophobic stories (and has repeatedly had to retract stories, along with failing various fact checks by media-observers). It has also been a key player in spreading Covid-denial and anti-vaxx disinformation.[5] It is a promulgator of far-right conspiracy theories.

From the (peer-reviewed) article The public, the pandemic, and the public service: The case of Alberta (Wesley and Ribeiro, 2024):

"Organizations that exhibited high levels of bias, frequently skewed or misrepresented facts, did not use reputable sources, and engaged in promoting conspiracies or misinformation were categorized as fringe. Here we included Fox News, Western Standard, Rebel News, Sun News, and talk radio as fringe news outlets."[6]

Additionally, just for a quick example:

"The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments."[7]

"[E]xtremists from the far-right of the political spectrum, including the Canadian Yellow Vest movement and the Canadian chapter of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant Soldiers of Odin. Their narratives are laundered and amplified by a well-established alternative media ecosystem, including outlets such as Rebel News, Western Standard, True North, and the Postmillennial."[8]

In fact, in its previous iteration, the Western Standard was charged with two counts of hate speech![9]

And, lol, just two days ago, "[Derek] Fildebrandt, 38, who is now the publisher of the Western Standard news website, faces four charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, according to court documents."[10]

It has a long history of anti-Indigenous racism. It promulgates a current far-right, anti-Indigenous conspiracy theory revolving around Residential Schools, elements of which were featured in this article until I had removed them. It is unfortunately not a reliable source, and I would appreciate my changes being accepted.

Hope you have a good rest of your day! Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The mere fact that a publication is 'far right' is not a valid reason to discount it. Respectfully, I do not see anything in the evidence you have provided that would suggest WS fails the relevant test. Links 1, 2, and 3 are neither here nor there. Links 4 and 5 go to the same article, and do not allege falsity in reporting. The segment you extract from the 'peer reviewed article' at link 6 is taken from the methodology section, which for a number of reasons, is inappropriate as a source for your claim. Link 7, although rather vague, seems to allude to an opinion piece, which would not impugn the paper's news reporting. Link 8 just links to the same article as 4 and 5. Link 9 is an irrelevant point about a charge (not a guilty verdict) unrelated to the truth or falsity of the reporting. Link 10 is the same.

Perhaps more importantly, is there any reason to omit the assertion that no human remains have been confirmed at the site? That seems like a bare fact.

I also hope you enjoy your day! Riposte97 (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, the onus is more on you to show that a deeply questionable source is reputable. It is not merely right-wing - it is a known purveyor of inaccurate claims, recognized as an outlet that propagates conspiracy theories. There is no sound reason to insist the claims it supports remain. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Shoot, forgot to include this part - the article states at several points that no human remains have been exhumed, and that the presence of bodies cannot be certain until/if there is an exhumation. However, the claims by the Western Standard (plus giving a known misinformation source legitimacy by using it as a source) do not merely state this fact; they heavily imply that the fact that bodies have not been exhumed means that there are no bodies. This is not accurate, as it does not reflect the true nuance of the situation (e.g. that exhumation has not taken place due in a large part to ongoing discussions of family and community members of whether exhumation would be seen as personally and culturally appropriate), and unfortunately reflects current conspiracy theories amongst the global alt-right. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There may be bodies, there may not be. It is simply not for us to say. We cannot exclude a source because it comes down on one side or the other. Riposte97 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that we absolutely can exclude a source that is known to be unreliable, and that is known as a purveyor of conspiracy and disinformation.

I respect your point of view - and agree with your statement that there may or may not be bodies present! - but I don't think we're likely to agree on the topic of using the Western Standard as a source. Maybe we should bring in a third party?

(also, thank you for your politeness and thoughtfulness as we've been discussing!) Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We can exclude a source because (as detailed by @Fluorescent Jellyfish above) a) they are not well established, b) they have an extreme bias, c) they are repeatedly having to retract stories and d) they push COVID misinformation. If you think that the source is reliable I suggest you take the question to WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content

@Elinruby in this edit you removed the citation for the claim 'Despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found.' Then in this edit you remove it for being unsourced. Pending consensus on the RS noticeboard, is there a reason why the content shouldn't be restored? Riposte97 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

yes. RSN isn't going to go in your favor. I am also unsure what you are talking about, to be polite. I removed both text and citation for the reasons given at RSN. I am still trying to understand the second diff but the reasons given at RSN are sufficient, whatever happened there in that second diff.

Please be very careful when describing the actions of other editors. Your misportrayal of the first diff is problematic and might be construed as casting aspersions.

Elinruby (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

heck, it's right there in the edit summary. The source is atrocious but ok, let's assume it isn't and that the band did put out a press release saying it had no comment. So what? Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)se

doh. different texts. I think you should strike your post, which makes an untrue statement. People need to be able to believe what other editors tell them. Elinruby (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby my aspersion-casting arm has been broken for a week now, so don't worry about that. Respectfully, you need to look two sentences before the sentence dealing with the band's statement. I don't believe I have said anything untrue. Riposte97 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(trying again) the two diff demonstrate the removal of two different sentences.

The first one has a terrible source, but you know that, because Fluorescent Jellyfish told you so on June 6. The sentence I removed in the second diff, two sentences earlier, as you say, was unsourced. And is, as you say, two sentences earlier. One of these sentences is not like the other. Despite you claim that I removed a reference, then removed the associated sentence as unrederenced. That is a heinous accusation, which you should strike. Also:

• First of all I don't know ,of any good reason why you would want to reinsert the sentence with the terrible source, which you have been told is a terrible source
• Second, that sentence is not, as you claim, the same material that is in the second diff. Maybe possibly with some AGF on top you may be mistaken, but your claim is false, and you should strike it. Your arm looks fine to me.
• Th

Y

hird, the sentence in the second diff is unsourced and may be removed on sight. ThWP:e ONUS is on you to gain consensus for its reinsertion and that will not be forthcoming from me. There will also not be any new editors showing up to agree with you here aDaniel Case has e-c protected this article. Elinruby (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)s