Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School

Western Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, just for a quick example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second @Riposte97 on the issue of WS being a reliable source.

And on another aspect of @Fluorescent Jellyfish your comment, if there are bodies there needs to be a solid proof, narratives on ground disturbances, missing records, are not solid proofs until the supposed graves are uncovered with bodies of children with archeological data, whether the first nation like it or not. Here the Western Standard themselves claim they have tried to contact the first nation community but they declined, also says about a Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirming the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. Spokesperson's response and first nation community's decline is a news is reliable unless proven wrong. Until then the news has to stay.

Also classifying every news sources that have news articles which seemed to be conservative or right wing, as unreliable sources doesn't do any good to wikipedia as a whole and in long, as it strikes on Wikipedia's Neutral point of View, and eventually make Wikipedia exclusively to write one wing sided narration. I have seen news articles from big news media companies like that of BBC that which reports on incidents like a survival story. If his/her survival story involves mention of God, Bible or Jesus by the survivor itself these giant medias keep silent on the matter without reporting in their story. Just like recent Porsche ad cropping out Lisbon's Jesus statue.

So I reiterate, silencing all news outlets that have reports which seemed to be right wing or conservative as unreliable in Wikipedia will result in exclusive use of Wikipedia as a platform for one sided narratives, and in long run the global distrust in mass media will also get translated to Wikipedia making it obsolete. What value does a shadow has if there are no sources of light? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That no bodies had be found as yet, was already in the article and cited to other references prior to the pushing of Western Standard. The issue with Western Standard isn't that it merely has a strongly right-wing bias, the issue is that it engages in denialism, misinformation, is constantly having to retract stories and is constantly getting facts wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That no bodies had be found as yet, was already in the article and cited to other references prior to the pushing of Western Standard

Where? As of latest revision അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As of March 2024, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc said that a decision to excavate the unmarked graves is "unresolved". TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

okay. As reliability of Western Standard is ongoing, their work is quoted as reported speech with another citation that reported the work of Western Standards. Following the discussions at RSN and this article's talk page(as of current status) another source is given for the citation for the Spokesperson and first nation communities statement which I got from discussions at RSN. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No. The source is unreliable as has been discussed by multiple editors. Per WP:ONUS you are required to obtain consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

reliability of WS is issue. But if WS made headlines, it is a development. See, WS isn't used as citations but the headlines the WS made is used. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't see it widespread making headlines. You can't use it as a source when it is WP:GUNREL. You need to obtain consensus for your edits per WP:ONUS. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

pardon. what were you saying at WP:GUNREL ?

The reliability of WS as whole was the issuehow come my edit be part of that. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You're going to need to obtain consensus for your edit per WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONUS. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

see the new discussion thread in this talk page for further discussion. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't quite parse that, but it seems pretty clear from the reaction at RSN that we should not use that source.Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WS isn't the source for the citation at my current edit. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the self report. You may not be aware that the deaths of over four thousand children were documented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission using archival records. In any event, this is all at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard now, where the reaction has been LOL. Even if WS might possibly be RS for something (which I doubt) it definitely isn't for this, and to claim is is a BESTSOURCE when tens of throusands of peer-reviewed sources also exist is...something I can't take seriously, sorry.Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• First of all I don't know of any good reason why you would want to reinsert the sentence with the terrible source, which you have been told is a terrible source
• Second, that sentence is not, as you claim, the same material that is in the second diff. Maybe possibly with some AGF on top you may be mistaken, but your claim is false, and you should strike it. Your arm looks fine to me.
• Third, the sentence in the second diff is unsourced and may be removed on sight. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for its reinsertion and that will not be forthcoming from me. There will also not be any new editors showing up to agree with you here as Daniel Case has e-c protected this article. Elinruby (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)s

Better source

This recent article from the National Post discuses how they there have been no excavations at the site: "But none of the 215 anomalies at Kamloops Indian Residential School have been archaeologically confirmed as graves." The article also notes that the Kamloops Indian Band initially reported the "remains of 215 children" after the radar survey in 2021, but is now calling them "anomalies". And there's discussion of the misinformation reported by the The New York Times back in 2021; see here. This from CNN was also rather egregious. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

National Post isn't recognised as a reliable source as it is an opinion piece. For further discussions see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under the section 'Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The May 28, 2024 article by Tristin Hopper is not an opinion piece. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it is categorized under opinion on the website. But that doesn't mean its unreliable. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

See the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, there's a lot of stuff Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard related to this article, but none of it discusses the National Post. What specifically did you want me to see there? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this academic article might provide a high quality source, discussing facts of the issue (particularly the miscommunications based around mass graves/remains) in a non-biased, evidence-based manner.

Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection, by Wadsworth, Halmhofer & Supernant in 2023. It was published in the (peer-reviewed, scholarly) journal 'Archaeological Prospection'.

They state, for instance:

"Over the past 15 years, some Indigenous communities have been searching for missing children, but it was not until the news of potential unmarked graves being located using GPR near the Kamloops Indian Residential School was announced in May 2021 that international attention spotlighted the issue (Sterritt, 2021)....The initial rush of reporting used terms and language that misrepresented the GPR results, including the use of mass grave and reporting that the ‘remains’ of 215 children had been found.

...The widespread use of initial and enduring misconceptions led to almost immediate backlash in various circles, including those who used the misconceptions to support and spread denialist misinformation and disinformation about the IRS system. Heath Justice and Carleton (2021, n.p.) define residential school denialism as ‘not the outright denial of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system's existence, but rather the rejection or misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling to undermine truth and reconciliation efforts’. Quoting French anthropologist Didier Fassin, Jones (2021, p. 104) also noted that denialism is ‘an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth’."

Overall, they discuss the miscommunications and misconceptions from media, etc., in a pretty thorough manner, and I believe this source would be considered one of the most reliable ones available. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This source seems like it's going to send us down a rabbit hole of misdirection and conflation between 1) denying that the IRS existed or committed any human rights violations (I'm not sure which, if any, non-fringe people have actually done this) and 2) a simple discussion that the Kamloops site not yet been demonstrated to contain graves, but nonetheless, three years ago, after only cursory radar survey, the NY Times, CNN, and elements of the Canadian government, and others proceeded as if human remains had conclusively been found. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The article specifically discusses how the media misreported the initial findings. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no mention of the NY Times or CNN there. And the focus of this study doesn't seem to be media misreporting. Can you point me to specific passages? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. No, that article does not specifically refer to the individual instances of outlets (such as NY Times) that misreported; it more discusses why that occurred and the effect it had. Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant! Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim of Western Standard as REPORTED SPEECH style from secondary sources

The reliability of Western Standard as a whole is ongoing at RSN. The question here, what about using the reports by other news medias that made headlines on the WS's claims in a reported speech style.

As In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found.

See here the citation isn't WS but another news agency that reported on WS's claim.

Also the latter part of my edit Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

Isn't sourced from WS and not even as a secondary source.

The citation to this(The Catholics Register) I got from RSN discussions on WS reliability. The Reliability of The Catholic Register at the moment isn't at discussion. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion/undoing others contributions by frequently citing unreliability

Frequently reverting and undoing others contributions saying any citation is unreliable is pathetic

Already reliability of Western Standard is going at RSN under the section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools when Western Standard was quoted as citation [11]

When the WS' claim is added as a reported speech style, it is reverted saying the secondary source is unreliable too under the sub section Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

Now I contributed with another new source(The Catholic Register, which I got from RSN discussion under the sub section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools) , now that too is reverted saying this new citation is also unreliable without talking at the the article's talk page.

See the Diffs to reverting [12] [13]

The recently reverted contributions with citations. According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation. The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

At this point even if we ditch all the above sources citing unreliability and got information from other new sources unrelated to WS or any another aforementioned news sites(not even as secondary source quoting Western Standard.) about the issue another discussion will start on the reliability about that new citation.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This material severely lacks any weight. Continued attempts at pushing material that seeks to undermine the field work with usage of weasel words strikes me as POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this material from The Catholic Register as it provides an appropriate update on this investigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The material which uses the Catholic Register as a citation, doesn't provide an update at all. The material seeks to make some issue of the amount of funding and that there had been no public accounting for the money. So what? It is of no significance that governments don't provide public accounting on specific grants. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Register unfortunately does not appear to be a reliable source, at least on Residential Schools.

One of the articles proposed to be used here - No accounting for burial sites’ funding - bases its claims on reporting from yet another source, Blacklock's Reporter. Blacklock's Reporter is not an established reliable news source.

Additionally, The Catholic Register has very concerning points of view and what appears to be bias in its reporting regarding Residential Schools. For example in this article, which speaks quite questionably, and inaccurately. It heavily implies that the head of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations 'made up' the possibility of children's bodies having been incinerated at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, quoting a bishop who calls the suggestion "laughable". In fact, direct eyewitness accounts of children - particularly infants - being incinerated in a furnace at the Kamloops Indian Residential School (and other residential schools) have long been attested to by survivors. [1] [2][3]

Much of the Catholic Register's coverage of residential schools appears to be aiming to downplay what took place, and to focus on the Catholic church as unfairly maligned.

This does not appear to be a reliable source, and it would be more logical to use a more reliable, well-established source to provide updates on the investigation. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A source should not be deemed unreliable simply because you don't like what it says or what it says contravenes your own political convictions. To that point, I don't think the NY Times or CNN should be deemed categorically unreliable on this subject even though they published misinformation on this subject in 2021. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind if a source disagrees with my political convictions, as long as it does so in a factual manner. For instance, in the Noticeboard I've given a fair bit of support to Aleteia, a Catholic church-focused source, because a number of its news-related articles appear fairly factual, with decent sources and support for their statements.

The Catholic Register does not fulfill those criteria for reliability, and I feel that its articles tend to show a pattern of inaccuracy, reliance on unreliable sources, and biased presentation.

I think it would be possible to find information about the current state of the investigation in other, more established sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How would you know if a news agency's articles are factual and reliable without comparing it with the already deemed reliable sources? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This line of argument reads as a way to try and make any and all sources unreliable/reliable on a whim. There's also a page dedicated to reliable sources, which you can find at WP:RS.

Why not provide the source that is unrelated to Western Standard and/or Blacklock's Reporter so we can look it over? CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 16:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by, but the issue isn't that "any" citation is unreliable, it's that these sources are unreliable. Western Standard seems to be unreliable, which is the growing consensus in RSN. The defense of the sources that are not Western Standard is that they are reporting on what Western Standard is saying. But if they're all reporting from the same unreliable source, that doesn't instill confidence in those new sources. Seems like this is what was said in RSN here.

Additionally, there's nothing wrong with scrutinizing new sources in any situation, but especially in a situation as contentious as this. If the 3+ sources that are brought up in this context are unreliable, it would make sense that we should also be critical of the the 4th.

It sounds like you have another source that you want to try adding to the article. Why not provide the source here so that others can look over it? CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally the sources which are sought to be introduced are being done so under the guise that no bodies have been exhumed with wording in a particular POV. I've already advised the editor in the discussion at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School#Western Standard that there is already material in the article which covers that no bodies have been excavated reading As of March 2024, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc said that a decision to excavate the unmarked graves is "unresolved". I really don't understand why they are continuing to seek to introduce sources which frame it from a particular POV, especially when those sources have been questioned. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)