Jump to content

Talk:Louis Riel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

How should Journal of Canadian Studies be cited?

Consensus is to use the English citation, not the bilingual one. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should doi:10.3138/jcs.48.3.79 be cited? As

  • English: Barrett, Matthew (2014). ""Hero of the Half-Breed Rebellion": Gabriel Dumont and Late Victorian Military Masculinity". Journal of Canadian Studies. 48 (3): 79–107. doi:10.3138/jcs.48.3.79. S2CID 145605358.

or

  • Bilingual: Barrett, Matthew (2014). ""Hero of the Half-Breed Rebellion": Gabriel Dumont and Late Victorian Military Masculinity". Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. 48 (3): 79–107. doi:10.3138/jcs.48.3.79. S2CID 145605358.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Since we've hit a brick wall at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Bilingual_journals, let's have an RFC here. Nikkimaria insists on citing Journal of Canadian Studies as the Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, as they claims this is "official title" of the journal. This is wrong, but they keep insisting this is so. Journal of Canadian Studies is the English title of the journal, Revue d'études canadiennes is the French title of the journal. The journal itself is clear on this, and lists the English and French titles separately (Journal of Canadian Studies · Revue d'études canadiennes, not a combined Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes). Further down, there is a copyright notice, in both French and English. This notice is

  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved.
  • Copyright © Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

In particular, it is not

  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. All rights reserved.
  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, we should cite the journal as an English-speaker would, in English. This is unlike Zeitschrift für Physik or Cahiers québécois de démographie (or to take an example from this article, Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française), which should be cited in German or French, because they have no official English title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

!Vote

  • Cite in English. Per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English - I agree that we only need one language usage for the cite, and it should properly be done in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite bilingual title. This is a bilingual journal, not a separate French and English edition; the bilingual title as originally cited is correct and an appropriate format for this article. As noted at my talk, this is a common practice among Canadian journals, including by anglophones. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English – Canadian here. While the majority of Canadian journals aren't bilingual, there are a significant number of bilingual journals that use naming practices like this in Canada. Nikkimaria is right that these bilingual titles are sometimes found in citations in English-language works. And there are some journals – I'm thinking specifically of Labour/Le Travail – that I don't think I've ever seen referred to unilingually.

    In the case of the Journal of Canadian Studies, however, it seems that this is not the case. Headbomb rightly points out that the journal itself frequently refers to itself unilingually in both English and French. This appears also to be reflected in common usage. Looking at works indexed by Google Scholar, the English title provides ~16,100 hits whereas the bilingual title provides just ~1,250 hits.[a]

    Generally, it makes sense that the title used in the citation of periodicals would mirror the title of the article about the journal, omitting disambiguators, of course.[b] With the possible exceptions of the conciseness and precision criteria (the latter of which mostly just affects disambiguators), our article titling criteria align with what I think most of us would want applied to the titles of periodicals in citations: recognizability, naturalness, and consistency. Mirroring the titles of articles about journals would provide us a uniform way of citing these titles across articles. Between that and the fact that Journal of Canadian Studies appears to be the most common form for citations outside of Wikipedia, it follows that we would use the unilingual title in this case. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Cite Bilingual title - It is common practice to cite (certain, although not all) bilingual Canadian journals with their bilingual titles. It would simply be wrong, for instance, to cite "Labour" rather than "Labour/Le Travail" or "Social History" and not "Histoire Social/Social History". For this particular journal, I note that the bilingual name is on the cover of the journal, and that the publisher refers to it, albeit inconsistently, with the full bilingual name: "The Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes" See here: https://www.utpjournals.press/loi/jcs Remes (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The "bilingual title" is not on the cover. Both titles are on the cover. There is not a single bilingual title of "Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes". This is no different than publishing in something like Physics in Canada (or in French, La physique au Canada). You cite it as Physics in Canada, not Physics in Canada/La physique au Canada. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite bilingual title: Following "the principle of least offense". Because it seems like a not insignificant number of French Canadians gets offended by the monolingual title. Since both monolingual and bilingual titles are used by academics, it cannot be wrong to go with the latter. Best would have been if the journal itself had clearly specified which format it recommends. ImTheIP (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm French-Canadian myself, and it's nonsense to require English-speakers to use the French title when there's a perfectly fine English one to use. And if you want the Journal's preference, take a look at [1]'s references (Estok, Simon C. 2010. "An Ecocritical Reading, Slightly Queer, of As for Me and My House." Journal of Canadian Studies 44 (3): 75–95 and Overton, James. 1988. "A Newfoundland Culture?" Journal of Canadian Studies 23 (1–2): 5–22 in particular) which cites Journal of Canadian Studies as Journal of Canadian Studies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English and cite in French: I suggest Journal of Canadian Studies (Revue d'études canadiennes). I do not think it should be listed with a backslash. RFT42 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English: This is a bilingual journal with a French name and an English name. In English Wikipedia, use the English name. In French Wikipedia use the French name. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English as this is apparently also the style used by the journal itself: On page 8 of the submission guidelines is an example of a citation to the Canadian Journal of Political Science, even though that journal on its website is indicated as Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite the same as the title of the Wikipedia article on the journal. We can argue at the talk page of that article, based on Wikipedia's article title standards, what its title should be, but there's no good reason to cite journals differently from what we call them in our articles about them. The current status quo would imply that in this case we should cite only the English title. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually cite in English, but cite bilingually in an article written in Canadian English, since bilingual treatment of proper names, when something has both an English and a French one, is a norm in that dialect, and this specific source clearly intends to be cited that way. This is basically a WP:ENGVAR matter. Whether a bilingual case should use a slash [note: not a backslash, that a different character, the one used for file paths in MS Windows: \] or a parenthetic construction should depend on how the journal presents its own name bilingually, and if this not clear, how it is most often presented bilingually in other sources. From what I see above, the clear answer to that is Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes (and, yes, do follow French capitalization conventions for French titles, per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE). Also, the bilingual name being on the cover arguably makes it the most formal/official/proper title for the work, so it's what we should use anyway; it would not be the first journal to have such a name even outside of language-related titling; some have ended up with double-barreled names due to mergers. PS: I kind of want to hand out a mass {{Trout}} for starting an RfC about something so trivial and for a bunch of you ever getting into a fight about it in the first place. PPS: I edit-conflicted with David Eppstein above, who presents an interesting argument, but we have to remember that WP is not a reliable source. And our title for an article can change at any time, so "same as the title of the Wikipedia article" could at least potentially produce unstable results, and so is not a tenable rule. We do not want to have to rename works in thousands of citations every time a WP article on a journal title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: As a Canadian myself, we have no dialect where we cite things bilingually. The journal has an English name and a French name. You use the one in the language you're speaking (see Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved. / Copyright © Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés. from the journal itself). The Office of the Prime Minister, for instance, is "Cabinet du Premier Ministre" in French. But no one refers to it as "Office of the Prime Minister/Cabinet du Premier Ministre", even if you'll find both the French and the English names on the logo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Maybe things have changed since I lived in Canada for several years, and could not walk more than five feet without seeing something given with both an English and a French name, basically any time the name was presented in a labeling manner rather than in a running-text sentence. The fact that this publication is cited with bilingual titles in many publications (especially Canadian ones, I would wager) supports that I'm arguing for. But I don't think I articulated what I was getting at very clearly. Your PM example: you'll find both the French and English names given in more places than just the logo. Spot-checking, this appears less common now than it once was at Canadian websites, esp. the government ones; many now seem to use landing pages that have you pick French or English before giving you any real content. But it still took only a moment in random Google results to find sites that give both versions of their name as the page title/banner, even if the material is otherwise all-English [without you switching to the French subsite]: [2][3][4][5]. It may actually be changing officially on Canadian government websites, as some policy thing; I just looked at a few and most seem to have dropped this habit on a page-title-by-page-title basis, though are still doing "Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada" in the top banner they have in common (even though you're on the English version and there's a Français link to get to the French one) [6]. Some have not made such a change [7]. So, I did probably over-state the case for how normative it is.

        Anyway, the "we just use the English one" argument you're presenting is (and was, when I lived in Toronto) entirely applicable to use in running-text sentences. It doesn't seem to broadly apply to all other cases, especially ones with a labeling purpose. Citations are not running-text, and exist for one purpose only: helping readers identify sources. The titles in the citation are basically serving that labeling function. As this journal is sometimes cited by its English name, sometimes the French, and sometimes both, the most reader-helpful thing is to provide both, which is what the publication is [mostly] indicating is its preference and the actual formal title of the work. It's certainly an approach Canadians are used to, even if they don't "demand" it and their government is less interested in now than before. If the argument is that various publications in Canada do not bother giving both versions in a citation, I'm sure that's true, but WP doesn't have a rigid "do it this way or else" citation format like so many off-site organizations (some of which have citation styles aimed at compression over clarity, given their specialized audiences, e.g. abbreviating journal names, compressing all author names to "AB Ceedie" format, etc.). It's more helpful to WP readers, and more in alignment with Canadian writing in general in a labeling context, to present both names. Or so I'm arguing. I've not lived in Canada since 2006, so I could just be flat-out wrong, though.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

        • " more in alignment with Canadian writing in general in a labeling context, to present both names." It isn't. When you write or cite things in Canadian English, you use the Canadian English name of things. Look at Canada, in passages like During this time, Canada introduced the Indian Act extending its control over the First Nations to education, government and legal rights. you don't have french translations at every turn i.e. During this time, Canada introduced the Indian Act/Lois sur les Indiens extending its control over the First Nations/Premières Nations to education, government and legal rights. Canadian law journals likewise cite it as the "Indian Act", not "Indian Act/Lois sur les Indiens". The journal itself cites itself as Journal of Canadian Studies, not Journal of Canadian Studies/Revues d'études canadiennes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite in English per Randykitty; that appears to be the journal's own style of citing papers published therein, e.g., six of the references here, two here, one here, one here, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A quick note to point out that the articles XOR'easter links to are from the Canadian Review of Political Science not the Journal of Canadian Studies so don't say anything one way or the other about how the latter journal cites itself. Remes (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The queries I ran were "Journal of Canadian Studies" -source:"Journal of Canadian Studies" and "Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes" -source:"Journal of Canadian Studies".
  2. ^ I would not, however, extend this uniformly to other types of publications. For example, subtitles of books (perhaps excepting "verbose subtitles" referred to at WP:SUBTITLE) should typically be included in citations despite their general exclusion from article titles.
  • Cite in English for the reasons given by Headbomb, Randykitty and SchreiberBike. To the example of the statutes which Headbomb mentions, I would add that it's not just the name of the Act which varies from French to English; the citation itself does. So if it is required to cite bilingually, the citation would be: Indian Act, RSC 1985, c. I-5 / Loi sur les Indiens, LRC 1985, ch. I-5. But no-one in the legal community uses that citation style, including the courts. For instance, the Supreme Court uses the English name and cite for the English version of the judgment, and the French version for the French version of the judgment. See the English and French versions of the Daniels case for an example citing the Indian Act:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/15858/index.do
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do
Parliament is required to enact the statutes in both languages, but that does not mean people who cite the statutes are required to use both languages. See p. 10 of the Submission Guidelines for this Journal, where it recommends using only the English version of bilingual/multilingual treaties and statutes. See also p. 7 of the Submission Guidelines, where it gives a couple of cites to debates in the Commons and in standing committees, in English only, although there are French versions for each of those cites. Seems to me that for this journal at least, its own practice is to cite in English for English articles. If there is a journal which itself consistently cites itself bilingually, then that would be the cite here.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Cite by the journal's convention. I think Headbomb makes a convincing case that the journal refers to itself as either Journal of Canadian Studies or Revue d'études canadiennes, but never as Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. For this reason, I think it ought to only be cited by the English name. There are however cases where a journal refers to itself by a bilingual name, such as Labour/Le Travail, which as far as I can tell is never written as only Labour or Le Travail. In that case, we should stick with the journal's convention rather than citing it as Labour.
My attention was brought here by a similar dispute at the page Who Killed Canadian History? between myself, Headbomb and Nikkimaria. The journals in question are Histoire sociale/Social History and Historical Studies in Education/Revue d’histoire De l’éducation. On the former's website, it refers to the journal by both the English name and the bilingual title, which I think gives us allowance to cite only the English name. In the case of the latter, its website refers to it only by the bilingual title, even in paragraphs written entirely in either English and French. As well, an individual paper on the website states that when citing the paper the journal should be written with the bilingual name. In both cases, we should follow the journal's standard. Tkbrett (✉) 15:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:URFA/2020

This article does not currently meet the featured article criteria. There is significant uncited text and the historiography section excessively relies on long quotes. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also MOS:SANDWICH, and listy popular culture prose. FAC nominator has not edited since 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia: Ready for reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria; on my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
"FAC nominator has not edited since 2007." Why is that at all relevant to whether the article meets FA status? Suggests ownership as an FA criterion? I'm puzzled by the comment.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It's relevant to the question of whether the article has been maintained, particularly kept up to date with recent scholarship, in the absence of a steward. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope to be able to take another look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My concerns appear to have been addressed. Removing from WP:FARGIVEN and marking as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please double check ref order; I adjusted some, but there are more.
  • Please have a look at WP:OVERLINKing with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
  • This statement should have date context: Historians have debated the Riel case so often and so passionately that he is the most written-about person in all of Canadian history.[71] ... is cited to 1994; is this still true? Maybe it should say "was described in 1994 as the most written-about" or something to that effect. Review throughout for similar ?

Marking Satisfactory at URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia, I've been trying to finish cleaning up here, but have run into an editing dispute. See for example this and User_talk:Nikkimaria#April_2021. Would either of you be able to offer some additional opinions on this issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's getting quite annoying to have Nikkimaria run roughshod on the article like they own it and knee-jerk revert everything to remove free links, DOIs, reinstore bilingual titles against consensus, and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not "knee-jerk revert"ing anything; I very carefully went through the edits in question to preserve changes that I agreed were useful, I simply don't agree that most of them were. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to call bullshit on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's rather easily confirmed through comparing versions - the edit that you incorrectly claimed was "vandalism" wasn't a straight revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb - I'm struggling to understand what exactly is achieved by this addition of images, given that we now have three instances of the same image appearing in the article, causing serious MOS:SANDWICH issues and a bit of an eyesore? I'm not going to comment on the citation formatting things, as I take a rather dim view of that whole thing (I'm not even entirely for sure what a DOI is), but I really think we need to come to a consensus here for image usage that only uses each image once. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Ask Nikkimaria, they were their additions here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC) (::::Edit, actually I missed half the edit. Fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC))
@Hog Farm: and a DOI is a digital object identifier. It's basically a permanent identifier link to a journal article that's designed to continue to point to the article even if a journal changes publishers, and so on. For example, doi:10.1177/070674377802300706. It's also used by tons of citation tools, tons of research tools, which is very useful for readers and researchers accessing this topic, with other side benefits involving citation analytics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo of his collected writings

I posted a photo of a set of books containing the writings of Riel. I added some text about his many kinds of writings. Another editor has deleted this and suggested taking it to a Talk page. I will accept the judgement of the community. Pete unseth (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I think there are a few reasons to include the photo. First of all, how many people produce enough writings in their lifetime time to file five volumes? Second, how many people produce writings that are considered significant enough to continue to be published, 135 years after their death? Third, there once was a strain of historigraphy which intimated that Riel was insane or an intelligent "primitive". The fact of considerable writings (again, still in print 135 years on) helps to refute any such suggestion. Overall, these three points indicate that the photo helps to support Riel's notablity in general, and more specifically, the need to take him and his ideas seriously. Finally, photos in general help to liven up the walls of text that occur in major wikipedia articles, and as a publishing format, it's helpful to have related photos in the article. I would suggest putting it in the "Legacy" section. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
If there is a feeling that more images are needed generally in this article, there are plenty available on Commons that could be considered. However, the use of this image specifically is not well suited to convey the points being proposed. The image does not indicate when these works were published nor for the most part what types of writings are contained therein. The question of historiography is best addressed directly via sourced text, and the writings themselves can be added as a bibliography (either here or linked from here). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Remove. Nikkimaria sums it up quite well. The image conveys little, if any information. We don't need to populate the sides of articles with useless images for purely aesthetic reasons. Tkbrett (✉) 12:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Revoking Riel's conviction

Hello

The paragraph "Revoking Riel's conviction" was deleted. Can I know the reason? Is The process of the revoking will not continue? Itaygur (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to a version of the article that includes the text you are referring to? We'd then be better able to assess whether it should be included. Indefatigable (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
this one Itaygur (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hamon wins 2019 Wilson Book Prize

  • Wilson Book Prize: Max Hamon on Louis Riel

    Patrice Dutil talks about the formative influences on Louis Riel with Max Hamon, the author of The Audacity of his Enterprise: Louis Riel and the Métis Nation that Canada Never Was (McGill-Queen’s University Press). Hamon discusses the impact of Riel’s parents, the politics of the Red River Settlement, and the pressures of the Collège de Montréal on Riel as a student. He also explores how Riel deployed a remarkable network to reinforce the legitimacy of the Metis people in Eastern Canada and the United States in the 1870s.

M. Max Hamon (Ph.D. 2018) wins the coveted 2019 Wilson Book Prize Cblambert (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Collected Writings of Louis Riel/Les Ecrits Complets de Louis Riel.

What is going with footnote 82 showing, heaven forbid, a bilingual title? Namely, Collected Writings of Louis Riel/Les Ecrits Complets de Louis Riel!Cblambert (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

As per the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Selected sources & readings

I have changed Sources section to Selected sources but I remain confused about what items qualify for inclusion as separate alphabetically-ordered source items. Books mostly. And Hansard. Anything else? Why?

Same problem with Further readings. Book ok. But no theses, no encyclopedia articles. Why?Cblambert (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources includes full bibliographic details that line up with short citations in the Footnotes section. See MOS:LAYOUT. Sources is the correct name for this section. Items that are not cited in this article could be included in Further reading, but given the scope of the topic it would simply not be possible to include every resource that exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree that Sources is the correct name for this section. I am very familiar with MOS:LAYOUT, with Harvard citation template usage, and with various source citation style guides including CMoS and IEEE. According to MOS#Notes_and_references, it may be more appropriate to use the name Reference to mean Selected sources and to use the name General reference to mean 'full bibliographic citations to sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the article'. Alternatively, is may be appropriate to use the name Bibliography to mean both Reference items and General reference items.
In any case, the source items included in the Sources section does not shed light on the criteria used for item inclusion in the section. Book mostly? Theses? Encyclopedia articles? Journal articles? ????Cblambert (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Other source types are for the most part cited inline. The heading Bibliography is discouraged for biographical articles because of the risk of confusion with a list of works by the subject. Further reading (which is what we have here) is not synonymous with General references. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The source items included in the References section still does not shed light on the criteria used for item inclusion in the section. Cblambert (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I notice Louis Riel (comics) FA includes the following TOC headers

9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 Works cited
12.1 Books
12.2 Journals and magazines
12.3 Newspapers
12.4 Web
13 Further reading
14 External links

where the 11 References section is equivalent to Louis Riel's Footnotes section and where the vast, vast majority of Louis Riel (comics)'s References items (94 of 96) are short-form footnotes, one of which 2 long-form footnotes deals with Spanish source item.

Which makes clear the criteria for inclusion of source items under the Works cited section -- that is, just about everything, which does a much better job of clearly visualizing Louis Riel (comics)'s References and Work cited footnotes and source items, and which is the way Louis Riel's Footnotes and References sections were for the most part formatted until this Spring's questionable re-formatting.Cblambert (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The forma t used at the comic article is not required, and it is not clear. why it would be beneficial here. And no, it was not how the previous iterations of this article were formatted - ever, AFAICT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The format is clearly beneficial because the criteria for selection what is source item with footnote(s) and what's footnote only is clear.
Here is another FA article that's similarilly as clear in terms of what's source and footnote and what's footnote only: I refer to Battle of Marais des Cygnes with TOC headers that follow:
6 Notes
7 References
8 Sources
Cblambert (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What do you see as being different about that example? As here, it includes a mix of short citations and full citations in References. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What's different is that all long footnotes are archived in waybackmachine.Cblambert (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Not so, and that's not a layout issue anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What is your response to previous issues to the effect that 'The source items included in the References section still does not shed light on the criteria used for item inclusion in the section.'Cblambert (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It remains unclear what your specific concern is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This issue is that you are unwilling or unable to outline criteria for deciding what's source and footnote and what's footnote only. This is not a problem is only one editor is involved but it's a big problem is multiple editors are involved. Which, of course, leads to conflict between different editors. What is the criteria? And why?Cblambert (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Books are the former, other source types are the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Visually messy, in my humble view.Cblambert (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Re Nikkimaria's above statement 'And no, it was not how the previous iterations of this article were formatted - ever, AFAICT.', refer to link Revision history change dated 30 Dec 2020, which shows 136 footnotes, the vast majority of which are linked to source items in 'Bibliography' section. Note also that the Thomas 1982 footnote linked to 'Bibliography' section is cited 8 times whereas current long-form footnote (not linked to separate source) called 'Thomas, Lewis H. (2016) [1982]. "Riel, Louis (1844–85)". Dictionary of Canadian Biography.' is cited over 40 times. Which raises questions about wisdom of having one reference so dependent on Louis Riel FA.Cblambert (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Re visually messy, see WP:INLINECITECLUTTER.Cblambert (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The historical version you reference includes some full citations in Footnotes and others in Bibliography, mixes cited and uncited sources in Bibliography, has a less clear rationale as to what goes where, and also does not match the layout of Louis Riel (comics). So again, it's not clear what exactly your concern is with the current layout, other than you dislike its aesthetics. 22:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The historical version referenced was a work in progress where the vast majority of which are linked to source items in 'Bibliography' section. The major failure is absence of consensus then and now about citation format in line with WP:INLINECITECLUTTER injunction about article 'not undergo[ing] large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.'Cblambert (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The historical version referenced was the end of a series of edits by you implementing a large-scale conversion of reference formats. Can you point to where you achieved consensus for that conversion? In the absence of that, the preceding version was a Footnotes section that mixed short and long citations, just as we have now; the difference is the linking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I did not achieved consensus for my conversion, nor did anybody else that I know of ever achieve such consensus. As I said my conversion was an unfinished WIP with the ultimate aim of eventually using long-form footnotes on an exception basis only.Cblambert (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, use of short-form footnotes with separate source section items is the exception.Cblambert (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Stanley's 4 critical perspectives of Riel as cited in Betts

Namely: "Riel, the defender of French language and religious rights; Riel, the half-breed patriot; Riel, the first western Canadian leader; Riel, the prophet and visionary".

Apparently, not good enough for "the most influential Riel historiographer". Why?Cblambert (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does this particular interpretation of Stanley warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC
I asked first. Why are Stanley's 4 critical perspectives of Riel not good enough for inclusion at the end of the section's last paragraph?Cblambert (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Again, we don't have room for everything that exists on this topic to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Again?
We don't have room??'
Is that a royal 'We'?Cblambert (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean, Nikkimari, by 'We' don't have room? Remember, 'We' assume good faith.Cblambert (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd refer to WP:SUMMARY here. Not everything ever written about a subject warrants inclusion in its article. (Also, always assume the assumption of good faith). Tkbrett (✉) 18:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria best knows what she means by 'We' don't have room.Cblambert (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
For comparison, using my trusty Word program, Thomas 2016's DCB article, which is cited over 40 times in Louis Riel article, has over 27,000 words whereas Louis Riel article proper has a little over 6,000 words.Cblambert (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Different publications have different practices with regards to appropriate article length. As Tkbrett notes, Wikipedia uses summary style, meaning that this article should provide a reasonably concise overview of the subject, and meaning that "why not" is not an adequate rationale for inclusion - especially in a section that has previously ballooned disproportionately to the rest of the content. If you would like to pursue a more in-depth treatment of this subtopic, Historiography of Louis Riel is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Historiography of Louis Riel wlink is not available.Cblambert (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a redlink, which you could turn blue if you so chose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Historiography of Louis Riel wlink is not available to me.
Red links indicate that an article could be created - see Help:Your first article for assistance with this process. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Like I say, Historiography of Louis Riel wlink is not available to me. Or, anybody else for that matter.Cblambert (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:REDLINKS Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Redlinks, new article options, etc. are clearly off topic.Cblambert (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The issue is not redlinks etc. but inclusion or not of one sentence in which Betts cites Stanley's 4 critical categories, Stanley being "the most influential Riel historiographer". Others may agree or disagree with this sentence inclusion option but talk of creating new article is unhelpful at best.Cblambert (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, the redlink is clearly on-topic given the guidance at WP:SUMMARY: "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article". You feel detail should be added on this subtopic; the best place to contain additional detail on this subtopic is a child article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The redlink is off-topic in terms of the talk section ==Stanley's 4 critical perspectives of Riel as cited in Betts==.Cblambert (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
For some reason Nikkimaria is under the impression that I ' feel detail should be added on this subtopic'. It should be clear that what is proposed is inclusion in Historiography section of the free-standing sentence,

Stanley, "the most influential Riel historiographer", proposed four categories encompassing the various critical perspectives of Riel: "Riel, the defender of French language and religious rights; Riel, the half-breed patriot; Riel, the first western Canadian leader; Riel, the prophet and visionary".,

inclusion of this free-standing sentence characterization by 'the most influential Riel historiographer' being abundantly appropriate in the context of the Historiography section.Cblambert (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Historiography and citation formatting issue, refer to Revision as of 19:28, 3 December 2020, which shows that less than 11 months ago

  • TOC read in part
9 See also
10 Footnotes
11 Further reading
11.1 Historiography
11.2 Primary sources
12 External links

Where

  • there were 128 footnotes, all long-form, in 10 Footnotes section (not linked to separate source section items)
  • there were 17 bibliographic items in 11 Further reading section
  • there were 19 bibliographic items in 11.1 Historiography sub-section
  • there were 2 bibliographic items in 11.2 Primary sources sub-section

Cblambert (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear what point you are trying to make here, other than that Historiography was previously disportionately represented in Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
First, evidently WP:INLINECITECLUTTER recommendation about 'As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.' has not been heeded at least twice in past year. Indeed, this consensus vacuum in terms of citation format still seems to be unfilled. Second, rightly or not, there is evidence that historiography looms large in recent perceived article content importance.Cblambert (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The "or not" does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The only historiography sticking point in this talk page concerns inclusion as proposed option of one sentence in which Betts cites Stanley's 4 critical categories. The 19 bibliographic items in 11.1 Historiography sub-section shown in Dec 3, 2020 TOC were there long before I came on the scene (on that same Dec 3rd).Cblambert (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
As suggested by Nikkimaria, I have created Draft Louis Riel (historiography). Maybe experts like User:Rjensen and other editors would be interested in helping turn this draft in actual article. Cblambert (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft Louis Riel (historiography) has been rejected and stopped in the following terms:

Submission rejected on 8 January 2022 by User:David.moreno72. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Rejected by David.moreno72 48 minutes ago. Cblambert (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not surprising given its current state - before being submitted the draft should be fairly complete, and at the moment it's an editorial comment and two quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I have never submitted another Wikipedia article from scratch. I can find a lot of Riel-historiographical sources but I'm not inclined to invest a whole lot of historiographic text content effort without a certain minimum level of interest from other editors and/or reviewers. A bit of a catch-22 situation right at the moment. Without support from historiography-savvy editors, the probability of turning the draft into an article seems to me to be low. All the current Historiography-prefixed WP article are about Roman Empire, British Empire, French Revolution, WWII, USA, German, Christianity and the Simpsons. None are about a deceased individual. And reviewers no doubt are fully aware of this without coming right out and saying so. Cblambert (talk) 00:29,9 January 2022 (UTC)
Examples of historiography articles about deceased individuals include Historiography of Alexander the Great, Historiography of Adolf Hitler, and Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I just noticed that. Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas is the only deceased individual arguably comparable to Draft:Louis Riel (historiography) but even there De Rosas's historiography ends up being compared to the Peron movement!! Strictly-speaking there are a few deceased individuals' historiographies but this is clearly the exception for someone comparable to, with all due respect, a garden-variety Canadian prairie province founder like Louis Riel, Riel being far down the notability ladder compared to Hitler, Alexander the Great and the like. Cblambert (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This does not take away from the fact that A LOT is written about Riel history compared to anybody else in Canada. The challenge is to make sure that this prepondance of Riel history comes across to draft article submission reviewers. Cblambert (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk says

Wrong forum for any discussion beyond article creation. Gain consensus at parent article or start an RfC on whatever content issues you have. This board is limited to article creation and Splitting an article has a clear procedure to follow. Slywriter (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC) / Cblambert (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That's it. It is either separate article Louis Riel (historiography) or Louis Riel without Historiography section but not both, which is the way Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas is (without separate Historiography section for Juan Manuel de Rosas). Cblambert (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Well. Maybe it's not 'That's it.' according my cryptic Help Desk helper's latest reply ... Stay tuned. Cblambert (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Historiography of Louis Riel Class C article has been created. Cblambert (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Louis Riel Featured Article unstable

Zero information on how to improve article. Just odd rant about article size with no talk about improving the article or the content within.Moxy- 20:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to article's xtools, the Louis Riel article is unstable and should therefore no longer qualify as Featured Article. In 9 months, the size of the Louis Riel article has decreased dramatically going from a high of 106,639 bytes on Jan 28 to the current near low of 73,441 bytes at 2:32PM today. A drop of about 30% compared to size max!!!! The first time Louis Riel article's size reached 73.4 kb was on 21 Jan 2008. What took 13 years to build up in size from 73.4 kb to 106.7 kb in 2021 took 9 months to get rid up to today!!! That is, a rate of size decrease (over 18 times) verging on systematic slow-motion vandalism!!! rmBy any mesure this drop in article size needs to be considered unstable.Cblambert (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC),

P.S.: Criteria for FA regarding stability reads in part:

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process ... .

When this article was promoted to FA status, it was 5586 words of readable prose, and at time of writing is 5651 - very close to identical. Several months ago it underwent editing to bring it back into line with the FA criteria as part of the URFA review process, and has been stable at that more reasonable size for some time. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
article's xtools shows steady downward trend for the past 9 months.Cblambert (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Xtools uses one datapoint per year for size; it doesn't show what happens in terms of size month by month. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You are not looking close enough. Xtools does show what happens from the start of the article to today. Look on right side axis of one of the charts. Cblambert (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It shows size by year. As I indicated. Not by month. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It shows size by year but it shows a steady downward trend line for the past 9 months, which is consistent with Revision history byte count data.Cblambert (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
A chart that only provides yearly data cannot show month over month trends. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What a way to run a railroad. FA granted in 2007 goes merry along for 13 years with everyone more or less happy enough for article's status when someone wakes up and apparently decides to revert article size back to the way it was 13 years ago no matter what happened in between.Cblambert (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
As already indicated, revisions were made to the article in response to concerns raised during a review of older FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What a way to run a railroad.Cblambert (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Cblambert, I find your arguments quite difficult to follow. This page became a FA in 2005 back when FACs did not receive the same level of scrutiny (compare the 2005 edition of this page to any contemporary FA and you'll immediately notice the difference). Because of this disparity in quality, we have a process of reviewing older FAs to ensure they meet today's higher standard. This article went through that process, which is what Nikkimaria is talking about. That is much better metric of judging quality than how many bytes a page takes up. Tkbrett (✉) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is herself very much talking of bytes. I consider the Louis Riel article to be unstable because of this haste to reduce article size. The Louis Riel article's FA status should be revoked.Cblambert (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
According Wikipedia:Summary style, '... 100 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long.'Cblambert (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Criterion 1e references day-to-day stability. Changes made months ago in response to a review process do not impact the article's compliance with 1e, and these changes brought the article into compliance with the other criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The Louis Riel article's FA status should be revoked.Cblambert (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are interesting 'Find edits by usestats' for Page Louis_Riel taken from Database enwiki which found 75 edits for Nikkimaria on Louis Riel article representing 1.64% of the total edits made to the page. Re-ordering these 75 edits [in practice 73 edits since last Dec 18] items to show the largest -ive to +ive contributions edits, in terms of size, gives the following:

Mar 6 21 1 -16,732 41.3% -16,732 41.3% reword
Mar 6 21 2 -4,652 11.5% -21,384 52.8% /* Historiography */ rework
Apr 4 21 3 -3,051 7.5% -24,435 60.4% org, refs
Apr 10 21 4 -1,978 4.9% -26,413 65.2% condense
Mar 5 21 5 -1,791 4.4% -28,204 69.7% images, trim pop culture
Oct 27 21 6 -1,590 3.9% -29,794 73.6% rv as per previous, take to talk if you disagree
Oct 27 21 7 -1,547 3.8% -31,341 77.4% partial rv- rm material unsupported by source, trim, restore useful links, ce
Apr 10 21 8 -1,158 2.9% -32,499 80.3% cull
Apr 7 21 9 -1,139 2.8% -33,638 83.1% org, condense
Mar 16 21 10 -866 2.1% -34,504 85.2% trim
Mar 5 21 11 -804 2.0% -35,308 87.2% rm thesis
Oct 29 21 12 -690 1.7% -35,998 88.9% see talk
Apr 9 21 13 -552 1.4% -36,550 90.3% rvt clutter (and potential for more)
Mar 6 21 14 -525 1.3% -37,075 91.6% refs
Apr 7 21 15 -524 1.3% -37,599 92.9% trim
Apr 5 21 16 -318 0.8% -37,917 93.7% /* Further reading */ rm1
Aug 28 21 17 -302 0.7% -38,219 94.4% rv as per previous, take to talk if you disagree
Apr 7 21 18 -290 0.7% -38,509 95.1% amend
Apr 7 21 19 -284 0.7% -38,793 95.8% refs, org
Apr 10 21 20 -263 0.6% -39,056 96.5% upd
Oct 29 21 21 -262 0.6% -39,318 97.1% rm non-RS
Mar 5 21 22 -242 0.6% -39,560 97.7% refs
Apr 7 21 23 -240 0.6% -39,800 98.3% refs
Jul 11 21 24 -236 0.6% -40,036 98.9% not a reliable source
Apr 7 21 25 -236 0.6% -40,272 99.5% rework
Apr 7 21 26 -230 0.6% -40,502 100.0% refs
Sub-total 26 -40,502 100.0%
Period 29 -2,772 6.9% -43,274 106.9% 29 -ve contr. edit items < 230 abs.
Period 18 2,788 -7.0% -40,486 99.9% 18 +ve contr. edit items
Total 73 -40,486 100.0%

The current 'page size' is 72,823 bytes. The moral of these stats is need to beware of the word 'rework', which used to describe the two most -ve-size-contribution edits, represents more than 50% of user's 73 total edits!! This is no way to run a railroad alright.Cblambert (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Cblambert, you're not actually discussing anything productive. Changes in article size are not in and of themselves reasons to strip an article of FA status — if you want that to happen, you need to show evidence that there are discernible and identifiable issues with the article's content, not just the number of bytes it does or doesn't weigh at any given point in time. And that's especially true given that a clear majority of the edits you're taking issue with in that list simply represent the substitution of one reference for another, and/or the simple reformatting of references, rather than the actual removal of any actual information. And furthermore, it is not your prerogative to simply assert that anybody who disagrees with you is doing anything wrong, or to revert people who close discussions just because you're not getting what you want.
    So, again, the size of the article is not an actionable issue in and of itself — you need to either show concrete examples of specific problems with the content of the article, or you need to drop the stick and move on. And note that I am a Wikipedia administrator, which means I have the power to temporarily or permanently block your editing privileges if y ou disobey an order to follow the rules. So either show some actual problems with the content, or let it go — and that's not a request, it's a direct order. You are not the person who gets to dictate what is or isn't "the way to run the railroad". Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Cblambert, this is your final warning: it is not your prerogative to revert an administrator on the closure of this unproductive discussion. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a talk discussion and there is of course no garantee of agreement. I stand by the gist of my argument in principle. You are at liberty to agree or disagree. There has never been any intimation on part of not wanting to follow the rules. I am not in a position to force anything on anything. I suggest we leave the FA issues raised in this talk page aside in order that I may go on to other more routine matters. Cheers.Cblambert (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You can "stand by the jist of your argument in principle" (and by the way, it's spelled gist with a g) all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't have a substantive argument to make, because the size of the article is not an actionable issue. And upon spotchecking a mere few of your edits to the article, you tried to use an unreliable user-generated site that is not valid for use as Wikipedia referencing at all, and other primary sources that have to be avoided — for example, his marriage to Marguerite Bellehumeur must be referenced to prose content about said marriage ta book, a newspaper or an encyclopedia, and you are absolutely not allowed to use primary source civil records, such as a copy of the original marriage certificate reuploaded to somebody's personal Scribd account, as a substitute for that — the use of primary source civil genealogy records as sourcing is absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia articles. And I don't mean "strongly discouraged but acceptable in some circumstances", either — I mean "absolute hard no, never ever under any circumstances". So you are not using legitimate sources, and people are correct to be replacing them with proper ones. And again, this discussion is closed, and you are not at liberty to reopen it. If you come up with something useful and productive to say, then you're free to start a new discussion about that, but so far you haven't offered anything useful or productive at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Louis Riel FA issue closure postcript

I appreciate this abundance of source information about Bellehumeur marriage but this detail is off-topic in terms of these talk page discussions. I realize that Sribd document is uploaded by Lawrence J. Barkwell Coordinator of Metis Heritage and History Research of the Louis Riel Institute which I thought might merit mention anyway because of this affiliation. I must admit that, accustomed to genealogical practice as I am, I was not aware that use of primary sources such at this marriage certificate was strictly forbidden. I will have to look at that more closely soon. The marriage certificate could be deemed to be a secondary source since it is a copy of the certificate. Also according to Barwell's https://www.metismuseum.ca/media/document.php/14504.Marguerite%20Monet%20dit%20Bellehumeur%20Riel.pdf 'They were married by “custom of the country” at Flat Creek. The prairie marriage was preformed in 1881, and Father Damiani – a Jesuit from St. Peter’s Mission, Montana, formally married them in March of 1882, at Carroll, Montana.Cblambert (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Photocopying a primary source does not render the copy into a secondary source. Secondary sources analyze, evaluate or interpret information, they don't just copy it. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC
Where is it that I made use of user-generated site? Again this strictly-speaking is off-topic in terms of these talk page discussions.
In terms of size not being strictly-speaking actionable, as a starting point, it is undeniably a powerful surrogate measure of whether the article is stable or not. I know because a few years ago, I had long-standing GA article formally demoted because of excessive swings in article size brought about by different editors.Cblambert (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
https://western-series.fandom.com/wiki/ is a user-generated source. We're not allowed to use WP:CIRCULAR citations to ourselves or other wikis; we have to source to stable third party publications. And no, it's not off topic in the least, as it goes right to the heart of what you're complaining about — by and large, you're pitching a fit about people removing or changing references, when most of the references they removed or changed are the bad ones you added. The purported instability of the article, at this point, is mostly your fault rather than anybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Re when most of the references they removed or changed are the bad ones you added and the purported instability of the article, at this point, is mostly your fault rather than anybody else's, this is a generalization I don't agree with.Cblambert (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Re 'you're free to start a new discussion', this was reason for raising new discussion: Nikkimaria encouraged me to talk in cases where edits did not agree with me, and by implication, with others. But if you put a gun to my head that I have to perform as a pre-condition for starting new discussion then we have an impossible conflict of interest. There has to be a certain amount of trust on both side. We have to start assuming good faith on both sides. Which I have no problem using as a starting point.Cblambert (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I am doing all this on a volunteer basis. So if there needs to be a cooling period before working on Louis Riel article, well so be it. But I cannot work with a gun aimed at my head demanding performance. So what would you like me to do with Louis Riel article?Cblambert (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Who in the hell is aiming a "gun" at your head, and what in blazes to you think you're being asked to "perform"?
Since I've stepped in here, literally all I've seen you do is (a) add unsuitable footnotes of types that we're not supposed to use, such as primary or user-generated sources, (b) revert anybody who disagreed with you, (c) come here to the talk page to argue that the article should be stripped of FA status just because the size of the article as measured in raw bytes is fluctuating, even though it's fluctuating primarily because of people fixing things you did badly, and (d) edit war over the closure of that discussion on the grounds that nothing productive was being said in it. And even looking at the discussions that happened before I stepped in, there's a clear pattern of you (a) refusing to understand the things people were saying to you, and/or (b) just arbitrarily deeming them "off topic" if they weren't what you wanted to hear, while simultaneously introducing much more off-topic points like the raw size of the article. What I haven't seen you do, so far, is actually raise useful or productive points that genuinely needed to be discussed.
We're all doing this on a volunteer basis. But if you think your time and energy are so much more valuable than everybody else's time and energy that we need to give you special treatment, and you're so wrapped up in your own drama that simply asking you to participate more collaboratively and actually listen to other people's feedback feels like "putting a gun to your head", then maybe you do need a cooling off period. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The bargain is that we assume good faith. we are polite and avoid personal attacks and we seek dispute resolution if needed. No lectures, no threats. Any infringement of these talk pillars is out of line.Cblambert (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, my first edit to Louis Riel article was on Dec 3, 2020 and the article size in the days just before Dec 3 was hovering around 100 kb.Cblambert (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing I said was in violation of any of our rules around good faith, politeness, personal attacks, dispute resolution, lectures or threats. And if you even try to strip the archivetop template from the above discussion again, you're going to find yourself on the business end of a temporary editblock for being disruptive. The closure comment stays, because I left it there when I closed the discussion in my capacity as an administrator, and whether Moxy is an administrator or not is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The bargain is that we assume good faith. we are polite and avoid personal attacks and we seek dispute resolution if needed. No lectures, no threats. Any infringement of these talk pillars is out of line. Wikipedia does not allow profanities.Cblambert (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I am done with Louis Riel. I don't need this kind of abuse.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, what part of the phrase nothing I said was in violation of any of our rules around good faith, politeness, personal attacks, dispute resolution, lectures or threats did you have trouble understanding the first time? (Oh, and incidentally, Wikipedia does not have any rule against profanities, either, so claiming we do isn't even a valid point.)
Secondly, the closure summary of a discussion is for summarizing that discussion; it is not for trying to express your personal opinions about the closure summaries in other discussions. So you are not entitled to close this discussion with a complaint about Moxy's closure summary in the previous discussion — for one thing, Moxy's edit summary was not "off topic", and for two, it had nothing to do with this discussion. The only thing "off topic" here was your closure summary, not anything in this or the prior discussion.
Thirdly, your responsibility-free interpretation of all of this is fascinating. Everybody else is just "abusing" you, and none of this can be laid at the feet of your attitude and behaviour?
Oh, this discussion is done, all right — but just so you realize, you're not the mic dropper. Bearcat (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, what part of the phrase nothing I said was in violation of any of our rules around good faith, politeness, personal attacks, dispute resolution, lectures or threats did you have trouble understanding the first time? (Oh, and incidentally, Wikipedia does not have any rule against profanities, either, so claiming we do isn't even a valid point.)
The only bargain is that we assume good faith. we are polite and avoid personal attacks and we seek dispute resolution if needed. No lectures, no threats. Any infringement of these talk pillars is out of line. Wikipedia does not allow profanities and bullying. I consider Moxy's summary comment in above section about unstable FA to be off topic. I am done with Louis Riel.Cblambert (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You can keep repeating that same boilerplate statement all you like, it's still not going to change the fact that nothing I said was in violation of any of our rules around good faith, politeness, personal attackys, dispute resolution, lectures or threats. And nobody gives a hoot what you consider to be on or off topic — Wikipedia's rules decide what's on or off topic, and you do not. And if you're done with the topic, then by all means be done. Which means stop talking about it. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

FA unstable section archive's summary comment

It should be clear that I consider Moxy's summary comment in above section about unstable FA to be off topic because the emphasis is not on stability pro or con. See for example Internet forum#Troll, which points to the need to restrict off-topic breaches of etiquette. Any WP user is at liberty to agree or disagree with my off-topic view here.Cblambert (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For somebody who was loudly screaming two days ago about how done with all this he was, you sure don't seem to actually be letting it go.
It should also be clear that absolutely nobody here gives a flying purple people eater what you think of Moxy's summary comment. Its emphasis does not have to be "on stability pro or con" to be on topic — the point of the concluding summary is to be a summary of the conclusion, and "there isn't a valid or productive point being made here" is an entirely legitimate and valid and on-topic summary of what happened in that discussion and why it was being closed. One more time, you were not raising a serious issue that anybody needed to discuss — you were focused entirely on the issue of the article's size in raw bytes, and made no effort to respond to numerous requests to provide evidence that there were any actionable issues whatsoever with the content of the article. The discussion was an unproductive waste of time that was not making any useful points, and calling it an unproductive discussion that's not making any useful points is not "off topic" just because it's not what you wanted to hear.
Also note, for the record, that while you're not supposed to keep adding to discussions that have already been closed by other people, starting a new discussion which you immediately close yourself is not your personal free pass to giving yourself the uncontested last word either. That ain't how this works, dude — just wrapping archiving tags around your own comment the moment you even post it is not a magic shield that automatically silences everybody else and gives you the last word. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Like I said 'Any WP user [include you] is at liberty to agree or disagree with my off-topic view here.' You have done that, I still consider that Moxy's summary comment in above section about unstable FA to be off topic because the emphasis is not on stability pro or con, and I stand by FA unstable good faith comments as originally discussed until 03:36 on 31 October 2021 before being drawn into closure diversion issues.
And just for the record

Moxy, with 12 edits or 0.26% of the total edits, had no business archiving the FA unstable section without description and authority at 20:41 on 31 October 2021. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, with 7 edits or 0.15% of the total edits, had no business restoring archiving of the FA unstable section without valid description and authority at 00:39 on 1 November 2021‎. At 02:48 on 1 November 2021 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz suggested that you [Bearcat] 'take a look at the Talk Page for the article on Louis Riel.' You restored archive with summary comment at 03:20 on 1 November 2021 including in terms of leaving Moxy's summary comment and in terms of 20:41 31 October 2021 timestamp.

Boulton primary sources should not be cited

According to Revision as of 19:28, 3 December 2020, Boulton 1886's Reminiscences of the North-West Rebellions is shown in TOC as one of two bibliographic source items of 11.2 Primary sources sub-section. Currently, under article's References section we have two Boulton source items, the same Boulton 1886 source item as well as the 1985 version of Boulton's book re-titled I Fought Riel: A Military Memoir edited by, and with introduction by, Heather Robertson, which are cited 4 times in short-form footnotes: Boulton 1985 p. 51 and Boulton 1886 pp. 411, 413 & 414.

According to Wikipedia:PRIMARY, the article should not be cited because interpretation of Boulton's 1886 material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Indeed, the first 2 sentences of the abstract to Google Book's I Fought Riel reads

Louis Riel personally singled out Major Charles Arkoll Boulton for execution. Thomas Scott was shot instead, but Boulton never lost his visceral hatred for the "rebel chief".

The Boulton 1985 p. 51 footnote should not be cited because it deals with content attributed to Boulton; that is, it does not deal with edits or Introduction by Robertson.Cblambert (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, according to Thomas 1982 in connection with 'primary materials on the disturbances',

The execution of Riel produced a flood of controversial literature, including [C. A.] Boulton, Reminiscences of the North-West rebellions, with a record of the raising of Her Majesty’s 100th Regiment in Canada . . .Cblambert (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Louis Riel as described by Harry McFie.

Harry McFie, a Swede of Scottish heritage who had spent much of his youth as a trapper in Canada wrote in his elderly days some stories about trapper life in Canada around the turn of the century. The two first books "Wasawasa" and "Lägerelder Längesen" were edited by Hans G. Westerlund and published in 1935 and 1936. Both the author and the editor claim that the stories in theese two first books are authentic as to how Harry remembered them at the time of writing several decades afterwards with allowances for the imperfectness of human memory. It is pointed out that the author doesn't always remember in what order things happened and therefore chapters aren't chronological. Theese two books have never been translated to English as far as I know. Later books by the same author were largely works of fiction.

Anyway in one of the "biographic" books described befriending an old widowed trapper by the name Ben who lived in a cabin in the middle of nowhere relying on his friends among the natives for bringing his furs to market and getting supplies back. Harry recites as he remembered the old trapper's story. In other words a highly unreliable secondary source relying on memory.

Ben apparently told Harry about his youth on the prairie south of the US border. A rather long and detailed story about the neighbour girl Laura who was very violently abducted and raped by Louis Riel and forced to become his captive mistress and brought to Canada. How Ben and Laura's brother who had been tortured by Louis wanted revenge and took out their barbaric revenge on innocent natives who got in their way. How Laura got free and married Ben and they two together went north trying to escape from the trauma and rebuild some sort of life.

In general the author Harry is friendly and matter-of-factly in the way he tells about the natives and the francophones so I doubt he invented the story to smear blame neither on the mestis nor on the memory of Louis Riel. Ben's intentions are unknown apart from a very obvious hatred against Louis Riel as a person. Ben's torture scars were said to be visible. Louis Riel comes across in this secondary recitation as a person who during that very period of time was pretty much insane. So...... the question is..... did Louis Riel commit the aforementioned acts of barbary when in an insane state (obviously not accountable) or is the story made up. What do the experts think?

I know Louis Riel and the risings he led is a sore toe to this day on both sides of the conflict and I do not want to add insult to injury for the mestis. I just wonder if someone could sort out what the reality is behind this story.

91.158.139.107 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC) 91.158.139.107 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

@Cblambert: As already noted, this edit introduced errors and the previous was appropriate. Could you explain why you feel it necessary to edit-war to restore this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any errors. Please elaborate on so-called 'errors'.Cblambert (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC):
==Reverts== is too broad an issue. Need to deal with uni-dimensional issues.Cblambert (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Scott's Execution — image & captioning

Execution image (Yes or No) and captioning choice is one such specific issue.Cblambert (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia Commons Discussion for ShootingThomasScott.jpg which says:
According to Moll's 2013 thesis (pp. 62-63, fig. 1) : "In the hierarchy of space, the Dominion had to be recognized as the singular sovereign body in the commonwealth of Canada. For that reason, it was impossible for the government to legitimize publicly the Métis’ sovereign act of a state execution. Instead, Scott’s execution was represented as murder as depicted in the imago)e that appeared in the Canadian Illustrated News cover on April 20, 1870, The Tragedy at Fort Garry.” The figure in the illustration looks remarkably like Riel and rather than represent the event as a public state execution, it is illustrated to represent a homicide (Figure 1)."--Cblambert (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hence Description 'A scene depicting an execution in front of Fort Garry' is inappropriate due to bias. C=blambert (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
‘This is a cold-blooded murder!’: Why the execution of Thomas Scott sent shock waves across Canada By Jamie Bradburn - Published on Mar 04, 2020. Bradburn has the following caption to the famous image:

A depiction of the execution of Thomas Scott that appeared on the cover of the April 23, 1870, edition of Canadian Illustrated News.

Just so we're clear, we have mixed messages whereby caption talks of 'execution' but the image clearly shows a 'homicide' in the making!!!!:::::Cblambert (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Lyle Dick's excellent article published in Manitoba History in 2005 entitled Nationalism and Visual Media in Canada: The Case of Thomas Scott’s Execution:

Conceived in the context of heightened partisanship during the Red River Resistance, the Canadian Illustrated News engraving of 23 April 1870 helped inflame anti-Métis sentiment and spurred the recruitment of a military force from Canada to wrest control of western lands from the provisional government. In the longer term, its publication probably also helped entrench negative attitudes towards the Métis and served as a precursor to official images reproduced in the Canadian Pictorial and Illustrated War News in 1885, which played a similar role in propagating approved messages to build support for Canada’s military actions during the Northwest Resistance.

In my view, 'The Tragedy at Fort Garry' is the best image caption to include in 2.2 Execution of Thomas Scott section, the text of which section should include additional text and citation reference to Dick's article.Cblambert (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If the point is to make clear the significance of this imagery in propaganda, it's better to make that clear in the caption itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba

Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba is another such manageable issue.Cblambert (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Historiography section citation in inconsistent with 4 Legacy section citations to the effect that Riel is recognized as Founder and/or Father of Manitoba. Hence [clarification needed] in Historiography section. This bullet moved here in lieu of having separate Historiography section citation.Cblambert (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are the four related Legacy section citations:

See also

  • Manitoba’s History Lives at Riel House:

    The founding father of Manitoba and Métis leader, Riel’s story is well-known, especially in Manitoba. ... Riel House ... continues to serve as a reminder of the legacy of the family of Manitoba’s founding father.

  • Manitoba Historical Society, Memorable Manitobans: Louis “David” Riel (1844-1885):

    A convention was held which drew up a “List of Rights” as the basis on which the Settlement would enter Confederation. Most of these “rights” were incorporated in the Manitoba Bill which received Royal Assent on 12 May 1870. For his efforts toward this achievement Riel has sometimes been called “the founder of the Province of Manitoba.”

    Cblambert (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a reflection of the different conceptions of Riel explored in his historiography. Some have recognized him as Father of Manitoba, others have problematized this view. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
What others have problematized this view?Cblambert (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
According to Marianopolis College's article The "Murder" of Thomas Scott:

"Although a pathetic figure in some respects, Riel, under his [George F. G. Stanley's] pen, is cast as the Father of Manitoba."

Cblambert (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
According to U of Manitoba News' posting Honouring the Founding Father of Manitoba, A Louis Riel Day message from Dr. Catherine Cook, Vice-President (Indigenous):

On Monday, Feb. 15, we celebrate Louis Riel Day, honouring the Founding Father of Manitoba. It’s important for all Manitobans to learn about the history of where we live and the role that Louis Riel and the Métis had in bringing our province into Confederation.

Cblambert (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that there are sources that recognize him with that title. However, the historiography reflecting that this has not always been the case. Earlier histories portray him as a lunatic traitor, and the heroic founder of Manitoba narrative entered the mainstream later. See in particular the last sentence of Historiography. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Founding Father of Manitoba is longstanding official government policy. Period. Some may disagree but Wikipedia is surely not advocating that this in not the case. Period.Cblambert (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Historiography's last sentence that:

In a 2010 speech, Beverley McLachlin, then Chief Justice of Canada, summed up Riel as being a rebel by the standards of the time but a patriot "viewed through our modern lens"

There is no use being timid about Riel being a patriot according to official government policy.Cblambert (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Think we should review the sources used as of late.....disappointing to not see any academic publications. Seeing the uses of website after website leads me to belive no historically relevant publications have even been look at. Will ask a few other to take a look. We currently have a blog then I can say is dubious at best for a few statements.Moxy- 02:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
... disappointing to not see any academic publications. Louis Riel is not an academic debating club.Cblambert (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism deletion by Moxy recorded for posterity in this Talk section:

<ref name=oosterom/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/35-2/house/sitting-87/hansard|work=Hansard|title=An Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel|date=21 October 1996}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.travelmanitoba.com/blog/in-louis-riels-footsteps-discovering-the-history-of-manitobas-founding-father/|title=In Louis Riel's Footsteps: Discovering the History of Manitoba's Founding Father |date=13 February 2020|publisher= Travel Manitoba}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|publisher=Government of Manitoba |title = Self-Guided Walking Tour: Manitoba Legislative Building, Grounds, Memorial Park and Memorial Boulevard | url = https://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/legtour/pubs/walkingtour.pdf|accessdate=14 December 2021|pages=9–10}}</ref><ref name=shsba/>

Cblambert (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
ref name=oosterom/> citation deleted was not created by me.Cblambert (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Pls review Wikipedia:Reliable sources... sits like blogs, travel info and memorial pages are not good sources. What is really off here is that sources are being replaced in some cases and others removed due to reliability concerns..... not content this time...just others trying to improve sourcing. Moxy- 05:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is bullshit.Cblambert (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Travel Manitoba, Manitoba Builidng, University of Manitoba and such formal Government of Manitoba document sources are all reliable government sources. Are you really suggesting that a press releases by a U of Manitoba VP is not to be believed? Are you really suggesting that a historical guided walking tour published by the Government of Manitoba is not to believed? Are you really suggesting that a formal Government of Manitoba document issued by Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques that describes the plaque commrmorating Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba is not to be believed? Unbelievable!Cblambert (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Moxy, Nikkimaria. Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflects longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy?Cblambert (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Re:

What is really off here is that sources are being replaced in some cases and others removed due to rebility concerns..... not content this time...just others trying to improve sourcing.

I am having a real hard time figuring out what you Moxy mean by this jargon language. I suspect you are concerned with right use of sources. Which is fine as far as this goes but I am concerned that the content and sources combined do justice to the longstanding formal Government of Manitoba policy behind the Founding Father of Manitoba history entrenching theme.Cblambert (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
As for review of sources, Louis Riel's FA status precludes making comprehensive reviews of sources without compromising FA's stability. We are at the tinkering stage not at the major review stage.Cblambert (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, no one is disputing that some sources refer to Riel as the "father of Manitoba". However, the whole point of the Historiography section is to discuss how viewpoints on Riel have diverged and evolved over time, and not all sources agree on that perspective. Part of what we need to do is reflect a representative survey of the literature, and use high-quality reliable sources to do so. An academic treatment of the subject will generally be a better source for this sort of content than a walking tour. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The citations in question are in the Legacy section. Nikkimaria you are not answerering the question posed. Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflecting longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy?Cblambert (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Historiography section Nikkimaria, I thought we were done chopping left and right. And now you are contemplating a major revamp of the Historiography section without addressing the issue of the Founding Father of Manitoba's longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy??!!Cblambert (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I was right all along. Louis Riel is unstable and its FA status should be demoted.Cblambert (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
And if memory serves me right demoting FA status should be as easy as pie.Cblambert (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2021 (.UTC)
Furthermore, article that is unstable in FA is also unstable in GA so demotion would in theory apply to both FA and GA.Cblambert (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Your memory is faulty, and you're asking the wrong question. The issue with which you opened this section concerned Historiography. I'm simply trying to help you understand why the "founder of Manitoba" language in Legacy coexists with the current Historiography, not proposing any revamp. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Far from my memory being faulty, the issue with which I opened this section concerned both Historiography and Legacy, Moxy vandalizing several citations in the Legacy section about Riel being the Founding Father Manitoba using foul language making allusion to removing shit sources, it being OK to remove junk sources, trimming more low grade sources, and the like. I don't care how you slice things in terms of reconciling Legacy and Historiography but the question is the right one Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflecting longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy? I am most pleased that you have abandoned the notion of revamping Historiography.Cblambert (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Cblambert, as has been explained to you numerous times before, reliable sourcing in a Wikipedia context does not just mean "any website you can find that supports the statement you want to find a source for". Our sources must be of certain specific types, and anything not of those types is not an option. The problem with "a press release from a U of Manitoba VP" does not hinge on whether or not a University of Manitoba VP would lie about a fact — it hinges on the fact that it's a press release. Your sources need to be either (a) bylined journalism by real professional journalists in real media outlets, such as major market daily newspapers and/or the news divisions of CTV, Global or the CBC, or (b) books (including academic books) published by real publishing companies. Not press releases, not the self-published websites of small organizations that offer walking tours for tourists, not government sources. Our rules govern what is or is not an acceptable source for content in our articles, your opinions about what should be accepted as a reliable source do not, and the things Moxy and Nikkimaria (who are both well-established editors who know what they're doing) are telling you are correct. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree. All the source citations that Moxy vandalized were reliable Government of Manitoba documents the veracity of which cannot be questioned to substantiate the Government's of Manitoba's policy of Riel as Founding Father of Manitoba. If Moxy and Nikkimaria are so smart why don't they come up with sources supporting the Government's of Manitoba's policy in regard to Riel's as Founding Father of Manitoba. Or, is this a case similar to the vicious circle that exists in the USA now, the major of Republicans not believing that Joe Biden is currently actually the USA's President because of the 'big lie'. In other words Moxy, Nikkimaria, Bearcat: What is the answer, with valid source citations, to the question? Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflecting longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy?Cblambert (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
My search for the word 'government' in the Wikipedia: Reliable sources article comes up with a big zero.Cblambert (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Officially sanctioned histories are by their nature biased. One of my favourite historiography books is by American historian Erin Torkelson Weber, written about the historiography of the Beatles. It includes helpful explainers on the field, such as this: "Officially authorized versions of history are by their nature incapable of providing the complete, unbiased story of an event or individual. Authorized accounts always trade a varying amount of impartiality in exchange for direct access. ... Verification from outside sources, and impartial historians, is critical in establishing the credibility and accuracy of a source and a narrative" (Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians, p. 37). Canadian historian Jennifer Reid provides a brief rundown on the increased recognition of Riel as founder of Manitoba in her 2012 book, Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada (University of Manitoba Press, pp. 4 ff.). It would be better to use a book like this – which is one of many reliable secondary sources focused on examining the historiography of Riel – rather than the junk provincial government sources that are currently being added. Tkbrett (✉) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
See for example book review about Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada by Babson College's Kevin Bruyneel.Cblambert (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The Government of Manitoba policy instituting Riel as Founding Father of Manitoba was adopted a quarter of century ago and is still going strong. This is a fact that simply should not be ignored. Why are leading Wikipedia editors not documenting this fact with proper source citations? There may be other historical perception issues but that is other issue distinct to the longstanding Government of Manitoba's longstanding policy concerning Riel as Founding Father of Manitoba. What Tkbrett says may be applicable but avoids the Founding Father of Manitoba Government of Manitoba policy issue. So add Tkbrett to leading editors needing answer, with valid source citations, to the question: Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflecting longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy?

Cblambert, I find your arguments extremely difficult to follow. Per my above comments, the Manitoba government's position on Riel is best served in the legacy section, as governments do not dictate historiography. In fact, in an April 2021 edit, Nikkimaria added this information to the legacy section, which makes your complaints seem all the more bizarre. Tkbrett (✉) 19:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett It's my turn to not understand you. In any case I am the one who is responsible to add in Legacy the phrase 'a plaque was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.' along with the citations that I added and that Moxy vandalized.
Tkbrett Saying that Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques' plaque commemorating the 1996 installation with photo and text engraving about Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba is 'junk provincial government source' is in my view unmitigated elitist nonsense.Cblambert (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Tkbrett Governments may not dictate historiography but they perforce can have a strong influence on shaping history. Hence, as alluded to in this section, it would be logical for Riel as Founding Father of Manitoba to figure in Legacy section as well as in Historiography section.Cblambert (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
OK this rant makes more sense now...was so puzzled as to why your still on this topic considering it's in the article. So the question is do we have to say the same thing 2 times in 2 different sections? Let's ping our in-house historiography expert. @Rjensen: .... is this covered by historiography..... I know this is a hard read and convoluted.... you have a few authors we can read about.... thus far we just got a few junk sites presented.Moxy- 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Moxy You are jumping to conclusion for it is definitely not the question is do we have to say the same thing 2 times in 2 different sections.
in the Legacy section we have the Government of Manitoba's longstanding policy position expressed as

In 1992, the House of Commons passed a resolution recognizing "the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation"; a plaque was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.

In the Historiography section we have one man's opinion (Bumsted's)

J. M. Bumsted in 2000 said that for Manitoba historian James Jackson, the shooting of Scott—"perhaps the result of Riel's madness—was the great blemish on Riel's achievement, depriving him of his proper role as the father of Manitoba.

Cblambert (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Historiography section fits better as section between Legacy/Commemorations and See also because Government of Manitoba Founding Father of Manitoba policy position in Legacy section raises clarification needed issue with conflicting Bumsted opinion about father of Manitoba.Cblambert (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would keep both. Legacy = popular image as expressed by politicians; historiography is different = serious academic work that is cross-checked by other scholars. Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There you are. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like, swims, and quacks like a Government of Manitoba, Founding Father of Manitoba policy it must be a Government of Manitoba, Founding Father of Manitoba policy. Re all this talk of 'junk' and/or 'shit' sources substitute with more professional and neutral terms 'popular' content and sources. Also, there is no need to look for non-existent high-level academic sources to support 'popular' content.Cblambert (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody gives a flying fig what you do or don't "agree" with. Wikipedia has very clear rules about what constitutes reliable sourcing and what does not, and your failure to agree with them does not change what they are. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)l
That hostility is never very far beneath—is it?Cblambert (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody owes you more politeness than you're offering in return. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
"[N]on-existent high-level academic sources"? Huh? Riel is the most written about figure in Canadian history, with more books still being written. At this point, what are you arguing? I thought Moxy figured out what your point was, but then you said Moxy was wrong and jumping to conclusions. What is the point you are trying to get across? Tkbrett (✉) 12:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I am suggesting what Rjensen is suggesting (about 'popular image as expressed by politicians', which may not exist in serious academic work):

I would keep both. Legacy = popular image as expressed by politicians; historiography is different = serious academic work that is cross-checked by other scholars.

No use getting caught in a Streetlight effect type of observational bias.Cblambert (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Riel's popular image is discussed in a variety of reliable secondary sources. To suggest that academics don't discuss it is flat out wrong. Because Riel is the most written about figure in Canadian history, we're not in a situation where there's too little information to draw on. (If anything, there's too much, which is where WP:SUMMARY comes in.) To take one example of a reliable secondary source, look at the book I mentioned earlier: Jennifer Reid's Louis Riel and the Creation of Modern Canada, which, beginning on page 4, includes information regarding his popular image. Tkbrett (✉) 16:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Rjensen is very specific about 'popular image as expressed by politicians' in response to my highlighting that

In the Legacy section we have the Government of Manitoba's longstanding policy position expressed as: In 1992, the House of Commons passed a resolution recognizing "the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation"; a plaque was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.

For example, what source citation should be used to support the plaque installed in 1996 to commemorate Riel as Founding Father of Manitoba? There is a Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques source for this particular plaque, which Moxy vandalized, but which would be perfect to restore for this purpose.Cblambert (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The point of "popular image as expressed by politicians" is not that we need to be directly citing primary sources for information. We use secondary sources to establish notability, particularly reliable ones, which plaques and travel blogs are decidedly not. I'm becoming weary at seeing how many times this has been emphasized to you by numerous knowledgeable and experienced editors, including Bearcat and Moxy above, yet you remain steadfast in trying to use these weak sources. Why? Lastly, it's not vandalism when people remove or fix your additions. Your sense of grievance is not helping matters here. Tkbrett (✉) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no use being impatient with me buddy. This Talk session is about 'Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba'. It is Rjensen suggesting

I would keep both. Legacy = popular image as expressed by politicians; historiograrephy is different = serious academic work that is cross-checked by other scholars.

Read what Rjensen is saying very carefully. He is saying that Legacy is 'popular image as expressed by politicians'. He is saying that Historiography is different, that is where serious academic work is cross-checked by other scholars. That is, Legacy popular image is not serious academic work that is cross-checked by other scholars. Moxy vandalized the Legacy phrase source citation deletions because the 'Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba' Talk section was well established and it was evident that he was going to have his way willy-nilly from the foul language used. Rjensen is the only one who has got it right. If anyone disagrees with what Rjensen is saying, then someone has to say so.Cblambert (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen is OK with the Legacy section sentence: In 1992, the House of Commons passed a resolution recognizing "the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation"; a plaque was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba. Rjensen makes no reference to primary sources and seems to be perfectly satisfied with plaque phrase. I don't know what could possibly be less than reliable with a Government of Manitoba Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques website link to the Louis Riel plaque.Cblambert (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Anything done by governments can be considered to be 'as expressed by politicians'.Cblambert (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding so-called weak sources, despite repeated appeals to Moxy, Nikkimaria and you, no one can evidently come up with 'stronger' source citation alternative to the MHCCP source citation Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques website link to the Louis Riel plaque. As a result we are all still in the dark as to the question: Do you have any doubt about Riel being Founding Father of Manitoba reflecting longstanding official Government of Manitoba policy?Cblambert (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It isn't anybody else's job to find better sources for you, or to show reasons to doubt the bad ones. If you're the one who wants the information to be in the article, then you're the one with a responsibility to provide sourcing for it that complies with Wikipedia's rules about what constitutes acceptable sourcing. The way the Wikipedia process works is not that inadmissible sources are perfectly fine for use until somebody can show evidence that they're incorrect, nor is it that you get to put the onus on other people to find better sources for you — if you're the one who wants the information to be in the article, then you're the one with a responsibility to (a) understand what's acceptable sourcing and what isn't, and (b) find acceptable sourcing that supports your desired content. You don't get to put that on Moxy or Rjensen or me; it's your job to find stronger source citation alternatives, not anybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bearcat. I will restore the Legacy plaque phrase source citations as I had them at the outset.Cblambert (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Done.Cblambert (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed again ....we have a source ....no need for others. Wikipedia:Competence is required#What is meant by "Competence is required"?.Moxy- 13:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
What part of what I said did you take as license to restore the same bad primary sources into the article again? I said you have a responsibility to find better ones, not that you were at liberty to keep using bad ones. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC
I went to bed worrying whether this would fly but I had to find out for sure. After all, Boulton is a primary source which still figures in this article. Not finding a secondary source for the plaque is one thing, but what is really unfortunate is that Founding Father of Manitoba does not figure more prominently (I've removed it for now, many many plaques out there)... Someone needs to take a picture of the plaque so it can be downloaded on Wikimedia Commons.Cblambert (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A plaque itself isn't necessarily notable enough to warrant inclusion in an article. Take for example the cairn described at the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson page. When writing that page, I didn't include mention of it by directly citing the text of the cairn, rather I found that several independent secondary sources discussed it, which indicated to me that it ought to be discussed in the article. At present on the Louis Riel page, there isn't anything to indicate that this Riel plaque is especially notable, since no secondary sources have been shown discussing it. Tkbrett (✉) 18:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
What is notable is the Founding Father of Manitoba is a branding mechanism by Manitoba Travel, the University of Manitoba, Self-Guided Tour sponsor including to and around the plaque, Riel House, Festival du Voyageur Festival, Louis Riel Day, etc., the original first mention of the Founding Father of Manitoba brand being the 1996 unveiling of the plaque monument.Cblambert (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Another Father of Manitoba branding in form of mural in St. Norbert, Manitoba in South Winnipeg. Pere du Manitoba: Louis Riel - Winnipeg, Manitoba Image]Cblambert (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This mural is on the side of a small commercial building in the St. Norbert area of Winnipeg. It faces Avenue de l'Eglise. The main part of the mural shows various scenes of Metis life. In the centre stands a portrait of Louis Riel. The text reads "Pere du Manitoba: Louis Riel Founder of Manitoba". A smaller adjoining panel on the back corner of the building shows Monseigneur Noel Ritchot. He is seated, writing a "Liste des Droits" (list of rights) with a quill pen. Father Ritchot negotiated on behalf of the Metis after the Red River Rebellion of 1869-1870, part of a sequence of events that led to the creation of the Province of Manitoba in 1870.

You're missing the point: these aren't notable because you say they are. That would be original research. If they're notable, then they'll be discussed in secondary sources. Tkbrett (✉) 18:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Of course.Cblambert (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I have removed Voyageur Festival ? mark and add Louis Riel Day among organizations with Father of Manitoba branding above. Louis Riel Day and Festival du Voyageur are interlocked to coincide on calendar CBC publicizes Louis Riel Day as typically being one of the festival’s busiest days, billing Riel as the 'founder of Manitoba who fought for Metis rights'. See cbc.ca/News's link dated Feb 18, 2013 at Louis Riel celebrated at Festival du Voyageur Social Sharing.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Manitobans are celebrating official federal and provincial recognition of Riel's role in the founding of Manitoba. See Louis Riel: Founder of Manitoba

The banks of the Red River in Winnipeg are a fitting place for a tribute to Louis Riel. Here, Manitobans are celebrating official federal and provincial recognition of Riel's role in the founding of Manitoba. It's a proud moment for the Métis people, too: they've gained a long-sought seat at the 1992 constitutional talks. "Métis people will be able to walk with their heads up high," says leader Yvon Dumont in this report from CBC News (Winnipeg newsreport).CBC TV, The National, July 11, 1992; Guests: Norman Chartrand, Yvon Dumont, Gary Filmon (Manitoba Premier), Ferdinand Guiboche; Hosto: Wendy Mesley; Reporter: Saša Petricic; Duration: 3:28 videoclip link herein Cblambert (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sssst! Footnote 33 (en) « The Wolseley Expedition » [archive], Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques, sur Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism (consulté le 2 janvier 2012) of Wikipédia article fr:Louis Riel evidently uses Manitoba Heritage Council Commemorative Plaques source! Cblambert (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
There is tons of CBC secondary sources about Riel as Father and/or Founder of Manitoba, especially if you look for both French and English, and if look for print, radio and TV news media. For a 3rd example mentioned today, Découvrir les Prairies sur les traces de Louis Riel by Gavin Boutroy, 22 July 2019:

« C’est vraiment de retourner au tout début du Manitoba et de réaliser que Louis Riel est vraiment le fondateur du Manitoba, dit Mme Gervais. » / "It’s really going back to the very beginning of Manitoba and realizing that Louis Riel is really the founder of Manitoba, says Gervais." (That is Ms. Michelle Gervais is Director of Riel Tourisme.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cblambert (talk • contribs)
Who cares what crappy sources the French article includes? Rather than dig for weak web sources to justify content you think should be included, reliable sources ought to be directing you. There are hundreds of high quality scholarly works written about Riel; there's no justifiable reason to avoid them. Tkbrett (✉) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Temper. Temper. Let's remember guys and gals, we are all one happy Wikipedia family. We assume good faith, we are polite and avoid personal attacks, we are welcoming to newcomers, and so on. Right? You and others are avoiding to substantiate the fact 'a plaque was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.' This is verging on elitist nonsense imposed by a solution not being able to be found for a problem.Cblambert (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is to document that I just finished off Footnote 101 that reads

Waldman, Ben (6 July 2021). "Idols no more, A tour of the legislative grounds reveals a collection of statues and memorials that delivers a selective history lesson". Winnipeg Free Press. Winnipeg, Manitoba: FP Newspapers Inc. Retrieved 23 December 2021. Map of Statues and Plaques, item 16A, 1st & 2nd of 2 pages, Louis Riel Plaque. Idols no more article cites Government of Manitoba Self-Guided Tour of Manitoba Legislative Building, Grounds, Memorial Park and Memorial Boulevard, with Item 16A plaque notation that 'recognizes Riel as a Founding Father of Manitoba'.

Bottom line: Louis Riel Plaque Item 16A was NOT one of the idols no more.Cblambert (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This claim is not supported by the WFP article cited - the presentation given was misleading. I have reverted it for this reason. That brings us back to the sourcing problem already discussed above and below. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This is in contravention of Moxy advice that @Gerda Arendt: has asked for full protection of Louis Riel.Cblambert (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This is also in contravention of Rjensen suggestion for Legacy popular image as expressed by politicians. User:Cblambert|Cblambert]] (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
None of those editors have advised including a reference to a source (WFP) that flatly does not say what you're saying it does. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue is in Moxy's hands.Cblambert (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Too many issues. Talk of full-protection. Louis Riel FA is unstable and should be demoted.Cblambert (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is what manitoba.ca > Sport, Culture and Heritage > Louis Riel Day has to say about Sites Commemorating Riel > Riel statue on the Legislative Building Grounds:

The Louis Riel statue on the south grounds of the Legislative Building was erected by the Manitoba Metis Federation to complement the development of the plaza, fountain and riverwalk. A Manitoba Heritage Council plaque, recognizing Riel as an individual of provincial historic significance, and as a founder of Manitoba, also was unveiled and installed on Manitoba Day, May 12, 1996.

This is what the City of Winnipeg has t o say about the Louis Riel Statue:

The statue created by sculptor Miguel Joyal and commissioned by the Manitoba Metis Federation, is located on the south grounds of the Legislative Building facing the Assiniboine River. The statue and plaque commemorate Riel's contribution to the development of Canadian Confederation and his role, and that of the Metis, as founders of Manitoba.

Refer also to Sunday Report newsclip, titled A new statue of Louis Riel in Manitoba in CBC TV archive, that aired on May 12, 1996, appears to have been unveiled on that day; both statue and plaque were therefore unveiled on Manitoba Day, May 12, 1996.Cblambert (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Legislative Grounds Riel Statue & Plaque Are Inseparable

So it becomes clear that the Manitoba Legislative Grounds Riel Statue and Plaque are inseparable. They're always shown together in presentations such as Louis Riel Day, City of Winnipeg and the Self-Guided Tour brochure. Statue and plaque were unveiled together on May 12, 1996 to be consistent with the Founder of Manitoba image. Self-Guided Tour brochure refers to Item 16 for statue and to Item 16A for plaque:

16 and 16A. Louis Riel Statue and Plaque (South Grounds, River Walkway) On May 12, 1996, the 126th anniversary of the passing of the Manitoba Act, a new statue of Louis Riel was dedicated. It replaced a controversial statue, erected in 1970 and moved to St. Boniface College in 1995. Sculpted by Miguel Joyal, the new statue portrays Riel, the leader of the Red River Resistance and President of the Provisional Government, 1869-1870. Riel is holding The Manitoba Act in his left hand, dressed in formal attire fitting for his era, and wearing a voyageur sash and moccasins to represent his Métis heritage. A nearby provincial plaque recognizes Riel as a Founding Father of Manitoba.

The statue is made to be admired and the accompanying plaque is made to be read. This is consistent with what Reid 2008 says on p. 4

This Riel was fully clothed with a bow tie beneath his overcoat, and wearing moccasins, an image that seemed more acceptable to a public largely prepared to regard the man as a founder of Manitoba.

The statue is more exciting to look at but it would be a mistake for Louis Riel to say that the plaque is to be ignored whereas the statue is not ignored, for example due to secondary source availability considerations. Statue and plaque are necessarily meant to be complementary. BTW Idols no more article probably mistakenly refers 'a plaque honouring Noel-Joseph Ritchot, who led Riel’s provisional government’s delegation to Ottawa to negotiate the province’s entry into Confederation'; it is most likely that the plaque refers to Louis Riel. Statue and plaque are distinct however in terms of sponsorship, the former being commissioned by the Manitoba Metis Federation, the latter by the Manitoba Heritage Council. But there can be no doubt that statue and plaque are meant to be viewed as a unified Founding Father of Manitoba theme. Cblambert (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Refer to Archived News Releases, News Release - Manitoba. May 10, 1996, Manitoba Day Celebrations Commemorate 126th Anniversary – Louis Riel Statue and Commemorative Plaque Unveiling at Legislative Building:

"In 1992, the legislative assembly formally recognized Louis Riel as an individual of historic significance in our province, and the new statue and plaque pay tribute to his contributions and role in Manitoba's entry into Confederation," said Praznik. "It is fitting that this unveiling take place on Manitoba Day, the date when the Manitoba Act received Royal Assent in 1870." Cblambert (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:OR when considering what claims can be made with the sourcing available. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

According to SHSB's Louis Riel and modern culture,

The statue of Riel as a statesman, which replaced the one created by Marcien Lemay on the Legislative Building grounds, is the work of Franco-Manitoban sculptor Miguel Joyal. It was unveiled on May 12th 1996, the anniversary of the Manitoba Act receiving Royal Assent in 1870. These articles from La Liberté report the event. “Le Riel de Miguel", La Liberté, week of May 17th to 23rd, 1996, p. 1 and Karine Beaudette, “Louis Riel, père du Manitoba”, La Liberté, week of May 17th to 23rd, 1996, p. 3 Cblambert (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

See also “Practical Results”: The Riel Statue Controversy at the Manitoba Legislative Building by Shannon Bower and Monique Dumontet's Essay 16 Controversy in the Commemoration of Louis Riel. Lots and lots of printer's ink spent on the 2 Riel statues. Cblambert (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
RJensen and/or Moxy and/or others should clarify what is meant by 'Legacy = popular image as expressed by politicians.', which implies relaxion of rigid OR, notability and hard insistence in secondary sources. Cblambert (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
It's very clear that we cannot simply disregard core policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The point is that the views of politicians and governments are best served in the Legacy rather than the Historiography section. The point is not that we engage in original research and cite primary sources, government websites and blogs. The issue goes deeper than something like a mention of a plaque though, and it's that multiple experienced editors and administrators have emphasized to you time and again that we need to use reliable sourcing to include content, only for you to respond with long, irrelevant block quotes from blogs and government websites. There are a multitude of reliable secondary sources covering how Riel's image has changed and evolved in the popular culture; those sources will direct us as to what content ought or ought not be included. Tkbrett (✉) 15:29, 26 December 2021 (TC)
Interesting little WFP 2013 article titled Modern-day history: Louis Riel's legacy redefined on the occasion of the sixth Louis Riel Day weekend, the author interviewing three authors: Rudy Wiebe, Chester Brown and Tom Flanagan. Cblambert (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me Tkbrett. RJensen says 'I would keep both. Legacy = popular image as expressed by politicians; historiography is different = serious academic work that is cross-checked by other scholars.' There is a difference and that difference goes deeper in Historiography than in Legacy. What does RJensen mean by that?Cblambert (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I started out this Talk topic '16 Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba' hoping to have a robust solution to this problem / question. I am still waited for consensus as to such robust solution. Cblambert (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the point is not that we engage in original research and cite primary sources, government websites and blogs but in the case of his Talk discussion primary sources, government websites and blogs were essential to properly define the problem in way understood by all. Which is not to say that these sources can be used in Louis Riel. What RJensen is suggesting is that it is OK to have disagreement between Legacy and Historiography in regard to founding father of Manitoba viewpoints at described by me to RJensen, by using popular image as expressed by politicians approach in Legacy. Cblambert (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Saunder's Symbolism of Louis Riel

I suggest that the 2nd last sentence of Legacy's last paragraph read

In 1992, the House of Commons passed a resolution recognizing "the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation"; a statue was installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.,

with 2 footnoted citations:

  • One short-format citation from page 75 of Kelly Saunder's Chapter 5 "Métis Political Identity and the Symbolism of Louis Riel" in the 2015 book The Politics of Popular Culture: Negotiating Power, Identity, and Place edited by Tim Nieguth which reads in part:

    In the mid-1980s, the MMF (Manitoba Metis Federation) began a campaign to have the original sculpture replaced with a statesman-like image more in line with Riel’s role as the founding father of Manitoba. The new statue, which was erected in 1996, depicts Riel in a suit and moccasins holding a scroll representing the Manitoba Act of 1870.

  • Another long-formated citation from Winnipeg Free Press's "Idols no more" article along the line documented above in Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba section.Cblambert (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)I
The statue is already discussed in the Commemorations section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not mentioned in the context of Founding Father of Manitoba. Also the commemoration day for statue is wrong as it should read May 12, 1996. The Legacy section and Commemoration sub-section should be combined and re-arranged accordingly. Cblambert (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It could also be that the 2nd sentence should ending in '... a statue and plaque were installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.', given all that has been discussed in Legislative Grounds Riel Statue & Plaque Are Inseparable sub-section.Cblambert (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
How about saying '... a new bronze statue taller than even the Golden Boy and suitable accompanying plaque were installed in 1996 on the provincial legislative grounds to commemorate Riel's contribution as Founding Father of Manitoba.' possibly citing Winnipeg Architecture Foundation's Louis Riel Statue.Cblambert (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC
This source makes no mention of the plaque. What is the rationale for removing the subheading and reorganizing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Idols no more article mentions on the map item 16 Louis Riel Statue and item 16A Louis Riel Plaque. Rationale for combining Legacy and Commemorations in one combined section is because current separate sections are somewhat artificial division.
P.S.: Note that the Golden Boy currently has primary source citation to Golden Boy Factsheet. I will let it to other eager beavers the task of quickly deleting this offending source.Cblambert (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Between you and me, The Louis Riel Day tour entry for Riel statue on the Legislative Building Grounds reads:

The Louis Riel statue on the south grounds of the Legislative Building was erected by the Manitoba Metis Federation to complement the development of the plaza, fountain and riverwalk. A Manitoba Heritage Council plaque, recognizing Riel as an individual of provincial historic significance, and as a founder of Manitoba, also was unveiled and installed on Manitoba Day, May 12, 1996. Cblambert (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the statue already being discussed in the Commemorations section, Louis Riel#Commemorations should also be reconciled with Louis Riel (sculpture), which is effectively a main article that is to date inadvertently unmentioned in Louis Riel. Note that Louis Riel (sculpture) has a primary source citation to Manitoba News Release dated May 10, 1996 that is also discussed above in Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba.Cblambert (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Louis Riel (sculpture) is linked 2 times in this article. Not sure what is being said here.Moxy- 03:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
'Not sure what is being said here." I have long since given up hope of trying to figure out what is going on here.😨 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merely suggesting that Louis Riel (sculpture) be linked in the other direction (Louis Riel to Louis Riel (sculpture) in Legacy and/or Commemorations) as main article.Cblambert (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think Nikkimaria has a pretty good idea of what it going on. I know exactly what is going on.Cblambert (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
What I do understand I don't agree with - the suggestion that we should reorganize these sections and treat the statue and plaque as inseparable. I don't understand the point being made about linking Louis Riel (statue), since as already noted it's already linked from Louis Riel. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Louis Riel (statue) does not exist. OK. While keeping Commemorations essentially intact, we can than add mention in Legacy of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in 1992 declaring Louis Riel a founding father and make enhancements about the statue in Commemorations along the lines described by Dummitt in terms of 'eleven-foot statue of Riel, gripping his list of rights and looming over the entire scene' and by Manitoba Architecture Foundation in terms of being 'taller even then the Golden Boy'.Cblambert (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dummitt actually mistakes Parliament for Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. So enhancements about the statue in Commemorations would accordingly be along the lines described by both Saunders and Dummitt whereby Saunders also describes 'original sculpture replaced with a statesman-like image more in line with Riel’s role as the founding father of Manitoba.'Cblambert (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to carefully read Shannon Bower's '"Practical Results": Riel Statue Controversy...' article, especially the part about 'In a letter to Gary Filmon, then Premier of Manitoba, dated 26 April 1993, Ernie Blais, then President of the Manitoba Metis Federation, seeks to secure a prominent location for Joyal’s statue:'

Mr. Premier, at the time of our discussion with the Honourable Gerry Ducharme, Riel was still a traitor in the eyes of Canadians. Little did we imagine that within months, he would be recognized as a Canadian hero and founder of the Province of Manitoba. In the light of this recognition, Federally and Provincially, the Manitoba Metis Federation finds it appropriate to indeed place a new statue in a more prominent location, such as the front of the legislature.

Also the notion that Riel's 11 feet high statue in the middle of the plaza would be inconsistent (i.e. not inseparable} with the Louis Riel Plaque in the front of and on the edge of the plaza is risibly implausible. Cblambert (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Cblambert, regarding this edit summary, I don't see that you've achieved consensus here for any proposed changes to this section? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Then we will go to dispute resolution.Cblambert (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure. The first step would be to restore the last stable version and put forward a comprehensible proposal. For example, I see you've just removed mention of the Louis Riel Trail; neither your edit summary nor anything you've posted here explains why you feel that was appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Please make no more changes to Commemorations. And I will make no more changes to Commemorations.Cblambert (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem with that is that you have already made changes to Commemorations, and it is unclear why those are believed to make the article better. Again, it would be most appropriate to go back to the last stable version, have a discussion here about what specific changes should be made and why, and see where consensus lies. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my request: Please make no more changes to Commemorations. And I will make no more changes to Commemorations.Cblambert (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
And I stand by my request: undo your disputed changes and explain why you feel they are beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The change is exhaustively explained in this Talk discussion. Further discussion of this Talk section will resume after dispute resolution process is started.Cblambert (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Er, no, you've not exhaustively explained those changes. For example, as already mentioned, where is your explanation of why we should remove the Louis Riel Trail? Where is there any mention of adding in the bridge in Provencher, or Festival du Voyageur? About the only piece of that series of edits actually discussed was the statue, and as I noted, it doesn't seem that you've achieved consensus for an.y changes related to that element. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The student centre at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon is named after Riel, as is the Louis Riel Trail. This sentence was removed in error and is now restored. The rest of change has been exhaustively discusssed. The ball is clear in your hands.Cblambert (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
What is clear is that you have not achieved consensus for any of the changes in your latest series of edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The ball is clear in your hands. The sooner the dispute resolution process is started, the soon we get the ball game going.Cblambert (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Re last revert, I stand by proposals made in 16 Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba about substance of enhancements made. The onus is of course on you to defend why enhancements should not be made. Cblambert (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not. Since we've not reached consensus we retain the version prior to the proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The issue is way beyond the consensus making stage and has to be resolved by some higher authority.Cblambert (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
So start an RfC. But in the interim, as already noted, you need to stop reverting and leave the pre-proposal version in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The onus is yours. You can start the RfC. I am not satisfied with going back to pre-enhancement changes. Cblambert (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The applicable policy is clear: in the absence of consensus we go back to the pre-proposal version, and if you want to change it from there it's up to you to get consensus for it. So if you're not satisfied, start an RfC; don't continue to edit-war or you risk being blocked from editing. I see Bearcat has already made that clear to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That is what we want. Escalation to a higher authority. Not you, not Moxy. A higher authority. Cblambert (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider myself a higher authority, but I do advice that ya'll 'outdent' your posts, once you've reached 10-indents. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, what to you mean by "should", in 'You really "should" get a consensus on this, before adding it. Cblambert (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It's obvious. If you don't get a consensus on this talkpage for what you want added? The it won't be added. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually GoodDay, your revert of rev of 02:02, 3 Jan 2022, which is a revert of Moxy, which is a revert of Nikkimaria, is in my humble view de-facto vandalization by deletion of the following:
  • Deletion of the sentence A bridge across the Red River at Ste Agathe in Provencher commemorates Riel, who was elected three times in that riding. edited by Nikkimaria's rev of 02:42, 1 Jan 2022 from the original sentence A bridge across the Red River at Ste Agathe in the Provencher Federal Riding commemorates Riel who was elected three times in Provencher. that I had created by edit of rev of 20:56, 31 Dec 2021. The last known version of this sentence is exactly as last edited by Nikkimaria and should therefore of course be restored.
  • Deletion of the term University of Saskatchewan Archives in the footnote "1885 – Aftermath". Our Legacy. University of Saskatchewan Archives. Retrieved 4 April 2021. edited by rev of 19:45, 31 Dec 2021 by me. There is of course no proposal or consensus required for this minor edit. It is a simple minor footnote improvement edit.
  • Deletion of the footnote reference <ref name=Dumontet> reverted to the form <ref>, which has no effect on the way the footnote displays before or after the change, but which mimicks Nikkimaria's revert for whatever reason she has.
  • Deletion of the phrase ..., which overlaps Winipeg's annual Festival du Voyageur celebrations. this removal being mimicked in a number of Nikkimaria edits starting with the edit of rev of 02:42, 1 January 2022, the Edit Summary of which reads irreverently and therefore inappropriately 'cleanup'.
  • Deletion of the wikilink term Manitoba Day, removed from the sentence The unveiling ceremony was on Manitoba Day, 12 May 1996, in Winnipeg. This is also a simple minor improvement edit, which requires no consensus or proposal.
So we are left with the sentence subject to either consensus-making or Request for Comment resolution: It was replaced with a statue of Louis Riel designed by Miguel Joyal depicting Riel as a statesman-like image more in line with his role as the founding father of Manitoba in a suit and moccasins holding a scroll representing the Manitoba Act of 1870. Which begs the question: Why is it GoodDay that you object for in the wording of this sentence? Cblambert (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Edits are not vandalism simply because you disagree with them. See WP:NOTVAND.
  • Why do you feel this particular bridge warrants inclusion?
  • Why do you feel this footnote change is an improvement not requiring consensus?
  • Named references are only needed if the footnote is repeated. This one no longer is.
  • Why do you feel mention of Festival is warranted?
  • Why do you feel this change requires no consensus or proposal?
Why do you feel this sentence is an improvement over the previous version, which was more concise and less convoluted? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Notice that my previous comments were directed at GoodDay, who along with Moxy chose to blindly revert Nikkimaria's complex change. GoodDay and Moxy are therefore responsible for their own actions. If a mistake or error of judgment is made by a post-revert editor in an earlier editor's complex change, then this is de-facto vandalism.
While I do not have to answer why Nikkimaria last edited the bridge sentence the way she did, I agree with her last bridge sentence edits. GoodDay, Moxy and others might have wondered why Nikkimaria deleted her last edit to the bridge sentence but they did not.
Re the footnote, the question for GoodDay and Moxy: Why do think that the minor footnote improvement change of adding the publisher's name is not an improvement worth keeping?
Re the named reference <ref name=Dumontet> revert to <ref>, Nikkimaria and I know why that is but <ref name=Dumontet> might be forever useful in future. So why would GoodDay and Moxy mimic replacement of the universally more useful <ref name=Dumontet> form without reason or comment?
The same reasoning applies for the Festival. Why do GoodDay and Moxy feel mention of Festival is not warranted, needing 'cleanup' by Nikkimaria?
Re the statesman-like image sentence, we find out above here today that Nikkimaria definitely prefers the previous version for it is more concise, less convoluted but with no indication yet of the pros and cons of the substance of the change—the part about being ' more in line with his [Riel's] role as the founding father of Manitoba in a suit and moccasins holding a scroll representing the Manitoba Act of 1870. ' Which is the long and the short of it—form over function, always, effectively giving some editors power of veto. So back to the question What is it GoodDay that you object to in the wording of the statesman-like image sentence?Cblambert (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, GoodDay, Why did you not find it useful to retain mention of Manitoba Day in the unveiling ceremony sentence? Cblambert (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Manitoba and Canada's North-West: FOUNDERS AND BUILDERS

In connection with above Riel Manitoba and Canada's North-West parent section, it seems especially fitting to highlight reference in general to Manitoba and Canada's North-West: FOUNDERS AND BUILDERS document contained in Spring/Summer 2021 issue of Canadian Issues published by the Association for Canadian Studies, the Board of Directors of which was elected on November 23, 2019.

The article by Jean Teillet, Louis Riel and Canada: A New Relationship, 150 years in the Making, included in this 2021 issue of Canadian Issues, also seems in particular especially germane given that it starts as follows:

Louis Riel is now acknowledged as a Father of Confederation and the Founder of Manitoba

. The Manitoba Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a Resolution to Recognize the Historic Role of Louis Riel as Founder of Manitoba in May of 1992. That same year the House of Commons and the Senate passed unanimous resolutions to recognize and honour him.

...that this House recognize the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation; and that this House support by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and practice, of the constitutional rights of the Métis people.

In 2016, a photo of Riel was mounted on the wall in the Manitoba Legislature among the portraits of all the other Premiers of Manitoba. The photographic portrait names him as the first leader of the province. Manitoba has named the third Monday in February as Louis Riel Day and he is remembered in solemn ceremonies across Canada on November 16th, the anniversary of his hanging. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had this to say on November 16, 2020.

As we mark the 150th anniversary of the Métis Nation’s entry into Confederation, today we also join the Métis people and all Canadians to honour Louis Riel. The Founder of Manitoba and an elected Member of Parliament, Louis Riel was a great defender of minority rights and the French language. In addition, his struggle to preserve Métis culture paved the way for the Canada we know today.

Note that bold emphasis is added. Cblambert (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Dummitt tying 'Riel a founding father' to Hamon

Also note Literary Review Canada, Jan–Feb 2021, “In the Eye of the Historian, Three takes on Louis Riel” book review by Christopher Dummitt of:

  • The North-West Is Our Mother: The Story of Louis Riel’s People, the Métis Nation by Jean Teillet, Patrick Crean Editions, 592 pages
  • The Audacity of His Enterprise: Louis Riel and the Métis Nation That Canada Never Was, 1840–1875 by M. Max Hamon, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 432 pages
  • A Rush to Judgment: The Unfair Trial of Louis Riel by Roger E. Salhany, Dundurn, 336 pages

in which Dummitt says appropriately (in connection with mention as a founding father in Louis Riel's Legacy and/or Commemorations):

But where has Hamon been over the last three decades? Back in 1992, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba declared Louis Riel a founding father. In 2007, Louis Riel Day became a statutory holiday in the province. For a quarter century, anyone who has walked past the legislative building in Winnipeg has been greeted by an eleven-foot statue of Riel, gripping his list of rights and looming over the entire scene. This is hardly someone who has been relegated to a dark corner of history. Cblambert (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Royal Assent Tour marks Manitoba's 125th birthday

Refer also to recent interesting joint Winnipeg Free Press / Carillon flashback about 125th birthday of Manitoba and naming of Louis Riel bridge in Provencher riding: COLUMN: Flashback May 17, 1995 - Royal Assent Tour marks Manitoba’s 125th birthday. Cblambert (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC).

Leaving a Legacy

Theodore Roosevelt understood the importance of history and identity. He wrote,

“It is a base untruth to say that happy is the nation that has no history. Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. . . Freedom from effort in the present merely means that there has been stored up effort in the past...Thank God for the iron in the blood of our fathers.” Cblambert (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Added Jennifer Reid (2008). Louis Riel an d the Creation of Modern Canada: Mythic Discourse and the Postcolonial State. UNM Press. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-8263-4415-1. OCLC 1037748071.. As it has information on previous statute. Moxy- 13:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Moxy. Reid doesn't mention the plaque, nor have I been able to find mention of it in other secondary sources, so I've removed it for now. Most discussion I've read seems to centre around the different statues, the bills tabled to pardon Riel or recognize him as a Father of Confederation and the establishment of Louis Riel Day in Manitoba. Tkbrett (✉) 14:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yup many many plaques out there....seems that the history of the pardon and his honorary titles is what is most relevant and written about.Moxy- 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What is References source items? What is long footnoted citations only? What is Refs & sfn?

What is References? What is long footnoted citations only? What is Ref & sfn? is another specific issue.

Imperative that consensus be reached about answers to these 3 question. Article has wasted hugh amount of effort flip-flopping citation style format. Cblambert (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
As above: books are in References, other sources inline. For Stanley, printing is not part of series. The Payment source is better described as a report than a book. Short cites use harvnb. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This section is really duplicate of prior Q&A:
Q. by me: what's source and footnote and what's footnote only.
A. by you: Books are the former, other source types are the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Cblambert (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Early life

This is a question as to whether Louis Riel started going to school at 7 years of age in bishop's library or in a school run by the Grey Nuns. W.O. Mitchell article in MacLean's says he started at 7 years of age in bishop's library and Manitoba Historial Society Memorable Manitobans says he started at 7 years of age in school run by Grey Nuns.

The Musée de St-Boniface Museum says

  • 1847-1956 Under the auspices of the Grey Nuns, the convent served as Western Canada’s first hospital, orphanage and seniors’ home. It was also a school, initially for both girls and boys; Louis Riel was a student here. Eventually, the Sisters operated a boarding school for girls.

So we know for sure he was schooled in a school run by the Grey Nuns in the building which is now the St-Boniface Museum and likely was then a school within a convent. It is also possible that he started out school in bishop's library.Cblambert (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Need scholarly publications... please avoid summary style websites especially travel sites and blogs with no editorial oversight or academic background... literally hundreds of academic books written about this.Moxy- 05:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You do it your way. I have no lessons to take from you. Thanks.Cblambert (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

He' first boarded at the convent school of .the Grey Nuns in St. Boniface, and later attended the Christian Brothers' School, which was held in the library of the bishop's house. (Flanagan)

.Moxy- 04:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This sentence comes from various sources including, but not exclusively, Nikkimaria and me. There are Christian Brothers in France and Ireland but I would settle for Christian Brothers.Cblambert (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Riel started school at seven years of age, possibly in Grey Nuns school that was housed is their longstanding convent and that eventually became the current St. Boniface Museum, or, in bishop Taché's library, or in both. At ten years of age, he went to other Catholic schools included one run by the Christian Brothers.Cblambert (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability, multiple sources & article balance

Re Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements

  • We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.

Q. Louis Riel's Footnote 6 Thomas, Lewis H. (2016) [1982]. "Riel, Louis (1844–85)". Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 11 now has 47 citations for the same footnote. I have previously raised this high number of citations for Thomas 1982, rev. 2016 in Selected sources & readings section 7 but could not find anything specific about this concern. Are these 40 odd citations for the one Thomas 1981 source reason for concern? Cblambert (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Riel/Archive_2&oldid=1122713178"