Talk:Kevin Annett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kevin Annett article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Contextual information about the Squamish Nation

What on earth does the current last sentence in the '2008 Protests' section have to do with Annett? It reads: However, the Squamish First Nation came to exist by order of the Canadian Government through the Indian Act. Forming the Squamish Nation in 1923 included the amalgamation of over sixteen tribes [8] and the abandonment of traditional tribal governments based on heredity. [9]

This seems to be a propoganda piece inserted by some supporter of Annett or eeven Annett himself to undercut the Squamish Nation's authority. Why is this type of argumentation allowed on Wikipedia?

The point of the addition was to clarify that the question of political authority is a complicated one given the history of Native people. Who is entitled to speak for the Squamish is not a cut and dried issue due to this history. I am neither in support of Annett nor against him.
That is an issue that doesn't have anything to do with Annett. I think simply stating who said what is sufficient. (Also, please sign your posts with four tildes: "~~~~". The software will replace them with your signature.) Sancho 06:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Being the author of the offending two lines I, of course, disagree about the relevancy of the history of the Squamish Nation. What my brief addendum brings up is a clarification of who said what in so much as it is an attempt to clarify what the Squamish Nation is and who Gerald Johnston is, or at least to point out that his claim to be a hereditary Chief is not invalidated by the announcement from the Squamish Nation. Johnston's claim is neither validated nor invalidated by the addendum. 71.237.161.49 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Also it is an issue that has something to do with Kevin Annett as it sheds a little light on the facts surrounding the protest's authorization from Gerald Johnston. Without the addendum most would conclude that there is no possible basis for Mr. Johnston's claim of the title of heredity Chief whereas in context it can be seen that the possibility of some claim to the title exists. 71.237.161.49 (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. That statement seems to try to 'give right' to what he did and should be removed.--Cahk (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

?? it doesn't "give right" to anything! it notes POSSIBILITY that there MIGHT be something to the claim, providing some balance (otherwise "most would conclude that there is no possible basis for Mr. Johnston's claim of the title of heredity Chief"): it puts the claim in context of the reality of native government and politics in Canada: it is not cut and dried, far from it. The battle over authority either by traditional hereditary or colonial govt imposed band council system is in fact raging all over "Indian country" - Canada and the US.216.86.123.209 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the 'giving right' to what Kevin Annett did I wasn't under the impression that it was the function of wikipedia entries to form an opinion on the legitimacy of the subject's actions, but rather to provide factual information about the subject and his actions. I notice that there has been no question of the veracity of the addendum.71.237.161.49 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Legitimacy of a government comes from the people. Do people recogize him (the Chief) as indeed their leader? If so, claiming otherwise proves nothing. No one question the truthfulness of the statement you add, as you might have expected, we are not farmilar with how the First Nations came about and how its Chief is selected/passed on. --Cahk (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Before 1920 Native Bands had leaderships based on heredity and not elected councils. Defining "the people" is difficult when 16 tribes are amalgamated. Familiarity with the Indian Act is relevant in this case. What might be presenting a problem is how I presented these details after the word "however," which indicated that these facts should be considered a refutation of the Squamish Nation's announcement. These facts merely shed light on the disagreement about who can authorize protests in the name of Squamish people, but do not refute the Squamish Nation announcement. I have removed the word "however" from the first line. 71.237.161.49 (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to authorization, I see this as : He claimed to be representing the Squamish First Nations (as a tribe) - however, the tribe did not sanctioned that event and through its leader (the recogized one, as far as we know) refuted the claim and issued a statement citing that they would not have a non-aboriginal people to speak on their behalf. It had nothing to do with the Chief being hereditary or otherwise, it simply states the tribe was not aware of their activities before hand and the action was not taken by the tribe.--Cahk (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to guess about what they said because there is a link to the entire statement. They did not say that the Nation would never appoint a non-aboriginal person as a representative or speaker, they said that Kevin Annett is not associated with the Squamish Nation and that Gerald Johnston doesn't represent the Nation. Gerald Johnston claim was not that he represented the Squamish Nation, but rather he is making a claim to be a chief based on a traditional form of tribal government which was ended by the Canadian Government through the Indian Act.71.237.161.49 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That statement was made in an interview with Global News the day after the disruption of church services. Not sure if they have a video archive online, but if they do, I will gurantee you find that interview with the statement said.--Cahk (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I put the statements giving the background of the Squamish Nation in brackets to try to indicate that it's just giving context. The information is already available in the article on the Squamish Nation though... maybe we could find a way to just point the reader to that article if they're curious about the details of the government of that nation. It really does seem to interrupt the flow of this article, since it's not really relevant to the subject, only through several degrees of separation. Sancho 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clean this up with a "see also" link, and a slight re-writing of the statements concerning Gerald Johnston. Sancho 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the "see also" link helps clarify the dispute over Johnston's claim and authorization. Could you explain why this is preferable to my two line explanation of the change away from traditional hereditary tribal governments?
I'm not sure it is preferable, but some reasons why I like the "see also" link is that we avoid duplicating information already covered in another article, and it doesn't interrupt the flow of this article. Sancho 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion demonstrates in spades how Annett can conflab just about any rational evaluation of facts at hand. Any encyclopedic claim that Gerald Johnston is a herediatry chief of the Squamish Nation needs to meet a burden of proof other than "Johnston says so," or "Annett says so". The fact is that regardless of what happened in 1920 in the change from hereditary to constitutional elections for chief, very few people within the existing Squamish nation recognize Johnston's (or Annett's) authority. From my source, Johnston finished 63rd out of 65 in a recent election for chief, which pretty much sums up the Squamish nation's opinion of the matter. So far it is only Annett himself who advances Johnston's claims, when viewed for the purposes of legitimizing Annett's actions. Ie. this article in Wikipedia is about Annett, not about Johnston. [Removed unsourced contentious material not useful for making article content choices as per WP:BIO] The fact remains, the Squamish nations denies Johnston's claims, so why is Wikipedia waffling on the matter? The Squamish Nation is the only authority here on this question, and Wikipedia should always reference that when someone else claims the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.107.112 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Waffling" is part what Wikipedia is about, but I like to call it consensus building :-) The article never states that Gerald Johnston is a hereditary chief, so I don't know what your disagreement is about. The sentence says, Annett claimed these actions were "authorized" by Squamish First Nation's hereditary chief Kiapilano. It's clear that this is a claim of Kevin's, and we're not saying that the hereditary chief is actually Kiapilano or Gerald. We also already do reference that the Squamish nation doesn't recognize Gerald Johnston. Again, I don't know what your disagreement is about, because the article seems to already be in line with what you're asking for. Sancho 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Hearing Panel Decision

The recent additions discussion Kevin's discontinuation seem to be a slight stretch from what can actually be said purely from the reference at [1]. I'm questioning the referencing/neutrality of the following:

  • "...the concerns that led to Annett's discontinuation with the church revolved around his "abuse of the good will of the congregation" which arose primarily through his outreach projects and his work with the food bank."
  • "Public statements from Annett made ... were also an important factor in his discontinuation."

The section in the hearing that discusses the "abuse of the good will of the congregation" related to the work with the food back is a couple of paragraphs from one of several long sections giving other concerns including leadership abilities, integrity and willingness to be held accountable, failure to maintain the peace and welfare of the church, and refusal to recognize the authority of the presbytery. To say that the concerns that led to his discontinuation revolved around this "abuse of the good will" is a gross simplification of the issue. Also, to say that the public statements that Annett made were an "important factor" is a stronger statement than is supported by the reference. We could do without these interpretations of the panel hearing... I'm not sure its necessary to say more than basically that he retired, and that the church put him on a discontinued list. Sancho 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the sections you mention either involve Annett's work with marginalized people through outreach or his criticism of the UC. In the section on leadership abilities the primary issues cited are both how he handled "projects involving the poor or marginalized" and his work with the outreach committee. In the section on his ability to be honest the criticism Annett leveled at the church is given as a primary example of his failure to report honestly about his ordination process. His refusal to be held accountable for the breakdown of communications between himself and the congregation again involves his work on poverty. Finally his failure to maintain peace and welfare of the church is the section wherein many of his public statements about residential schools are quoted. The only section that does not involve either his attacks on his own church for its treatment of natives, or the more general work Annett did with hungry and marginalized people would be the section on his refusal to accept the authority of the presbytery. I would be glad to add that refusal to the list of causes for his discontinuation. I will try to correct these lines to reflect how many disapproved of the means and manner in which he went about pursuing these programs of outreach.71.237.161.49 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
But we still can't say that the discontinuation "revolved around his abuse of the good will", or that the public statements were an "important" factor. We could say reasons for his discontinuation "included abuse of the good will...", and that the public statements were a "factor" (vs "important factor"). These would be more neutral wordings. Sancho 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording of this section to the one I just suggested here. What do you think? Sancho 06:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This change seems fair to me. (original author)69.241.126.114 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what this "revolved around his abuse of the good will (of the congregation)" refers to. The real documented issue is that Annett ignored the legitimate authority of his local church board back in 1994 by ignoring the terms and conditions of use of the food bank set by his board. In the United Church it is the board, not the minister, who has authority over these matters. It is documented that the board was more than willing to make the food bank a success, but Annett handed out keys to the building without the authority of the board so that people could access it during off hours. When the board tried to regulate this, he called them racists. This is the whole nub of the issue which led to his delisting - he only recognized his own authority, and when anyone objected or tried to channel authority to a legitimate body he labelled them as racist. When presbytery came in to sort out the conflict between Annett and his board, he labelled the presbytery racist, and refused to recognize their authority. Whatever one thinks of the authority presbytery has, they still have it. It's what every United Church clergy agrees to at the time of ordination, for good or for ill. It was only after presbytery acted to solve the original dispute that Annett brought in issues like the sale of the Lot on Flores Island... all this is the nub of the issue, and should be reflected as fact in any well researched encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.107.112 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is all already in the article, not the nitty-gritty details, but in a summary style, with a reference to the original hearing discussion if readers want to read more. Did you read the article? It says According to the Formal Hearing Panel Discussion of the British Columbia Conference of the United Church the concerns that led to Annett's discontinuation with the church included his "abuse of the good will of the congregation" related to his outreach projects and his work with the food bank. These conflicts, Annett's refusal to recognize the authority of the Presbytery, public statements from Annett made after his resignation from St. Andrew's, and statements against the United Church regarding the Church's alleged complicity in crimes committed at residential schools were all factors in his discontinuation.. I think this covers everything you've mentioned above. Sancho 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how the United Church is a neutral party in this dispute: the dispute over how and why Annett was removed is between Annett and the United Church of Canada, therefore the United Church of Canada is in a conflict of interest here, not a neutral third party. Angels hope (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As long at the United Church isn't editing, they aren't acting with a conflict of interest. We have simply reported in this article the factors that they say led to their decision (the main headings from the hearing panel report). We make no judgment as to whether or not their decision was warranted; we only report the factors involved in the decision. Sancho 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You report the factors that THEY say led to their decision. To try and keep this very simple, it is only the people who were directly involved at the time of the events in question who could have ANYTHING to say about them; anything else is hearsay and speculation. Any details of how and why the relationship ended in entirely inappropriate to wikipedia, therefore, since the only people who could speak to the events are also the people directly involved in the events, therefore not neutral. For neutrality, the best we could do is say "there was an acrimonious parting of company. Here is party 1's version (website link) and here is party 2's version (website link)". That is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.119.244 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What about just saying that Kevin resigned and the United Church placed him on the discontinued service list? That's simple enough, not disputed, and doesn't go into irrelevant details. Sancho 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

well, actually, there is some dispute there. it makes it look like he was resigning from ministry when he wasn't - there was an agreement that he would work at st. andrews until june of that year after which he would be placed at another church. A week later they fired him outright (i've held and read the original documents) without notice. The church is spinning it like he was quitting ministry altogether when he was merely applying for another post. As i keep trying to point out, there is a lack of neutrality here: all three references in the first part of the bio are all using the United Church as its source - just as NPOV as using Kevin's own version. As i suggested, just say that the circumstances of the split are under dispute, here are links to both versions.216.86.123.209 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I oversimplified a bit. The current wording in the article does say that he was resigning from his position in Port Alberni, which I have found two reliable sources for, and I think from your most recent comment here, that you agree that this did happen. So we haven't said in the article, nor should we say that he resigned from the ministry... no reliable source reports this. Also, it's not disputed that the church placed Kevin on the discontinued service list. It is completely neutral to say that those two things happened. Instead of saying the circumstances of the split are under dispute, let's just not even mention the circumstances of the split. I'll be bold and make the change in the article so that you can see exactly what I had in mind... if it doesn't look good, you can try another version, or I'd be glad to talk about it more here. Sancho 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your "reliable sources" are both directly from the United Church - if they are to be left in, then the only fair thing is to also reference Kevin's book and add that they fired him without notice or cause a week after he submitted his resignation - he was still working when they took him out (that would be the salient point in any court of law).Soul Sovereign (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"he was still working when they took him out" is in fact true. However, the phrase "took him out" is misleading (not in substance but in the impugned motive), the proper way of putting it is that he got a payout until the effective date of the resignation including all employment benefits and residency in the manse, so the courts would have been satisfied. In effect he got 5 months' severence which is generous by any employment standards. What remained at issue was his fitness for ministry for some future hypothetical church appointment. Rather than rehearse that part of the saga here, the finding of the formal hearing panel should be consulted.207.6.107.104 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This thread of discussion becoming off-topic. We can't just have general discussion about the subject. Only discussion about improving the article is appropriate. Sancho 05:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have two points to make, and one question. First, the United Church Observer is "independently incorporated", "sets its own editorial policies", and "does not speak as the denomination’s official voice" (from [2]). That is, the United Church Observer is not "from the United Church" as you put it, and I believe this publication meets the standards outlined at WP:SOURCE: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Second, as per WP:SPS, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. My question: what statement in the article do you believe is poorly sources or incorrect? (Please read WP:INDENT to learn how to keep your posts indented in a way that lets us easily tell where your comments fit in the discussion.) Sancho 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh big brother - talk about double think! The United Church Observer is not from the United Church. Ok, then! How could anyone argue with logic like that? (BTW, that doesn't address the first and third references which I doubt would claim to be "independently incorporated")Soul Sovereign (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I can't tell through your sarcasm what your position is now... do you agree that the United Church Observer is a reliable source or not? As for your second point, every sentence that uses the first or third references as a source also uses the United Church Observer as a source, so I still don't see any statement in this article that is poorly sourced or false. Could you please point out specifically which statement in the article you have issue with? Sancho 00:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A reference

Just looking for a reference for this line: "These actions were claimed to be "authorized" by Squamish First Nation's hereditary chief Kiapilano." Sancho 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Sancho 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal?

Why was this removed: "Annett and his fellow protesters also alleged that the Cathedral is trespassing. Annett claimed these actions were "authorized" by Squamish First Nation's hereditary chief Kiapilano." If that statement is removed, there's certainly no reason to go into the details of the history of the Squamish Nation. Sancho 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line about "Annett and his fellow protesters also alleged that the Cathedral is trespassing" because I could find no mention of trespassing in the source cited nor make much sense of the allegation itself. I assumed that the line was simply an error. 71.237.161.49 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
While I want to assume anon. IP edit have is doing good faith editing - which I normally don't because I fight IP vandals everyday, I am feeling that the IP edits is trying to steer the article in giving reasons why Annett was right in claiming things that was blatantly denied by the recogized chief. I am no expert on Aboriginal history or their culture, but I am pretty sure if the group give legitimacy to a person and they call him 'Chief', claiming otherwise makes no real factual value.--Cahk (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what chief you're referring to. The only chief mentioned is the hereditary Chief who the Squamish Nation deny authority. To clarify, the man who calls himself a hereditary Chief did authorize Annett, but the Squamish Nation Council denies that Johnston is a hereditary Chief. Given this context I think its important to point out that the Squamish Nation abandoned traditional governmental forms based on authority over 80 years ago. 71.237.161.49 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When I asked this question, the line, "Annett claimed these actions were "authorized" by Squamish First Nation's hereditary chief Kiapilano.", had been removed. It has since been re-instated, so my question is irrelevant now. Sancho 06:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Applying the logic you have, I will ask what makes Johnston a hereditary Chief? What evidence is there to prove that account? I honesty don't see how a tribe of people would 'abandon' its alleged 'real' chief over the current, recognized chief.--Cahk (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what Johnston is basing his claim on. However I will reiterate that the Squamish Nation's history includes the abandoment of government's based on heredity and that Johnston's claim should be understood in that context. It is not that the current members of the Squamish Nation abandoned the "real" chief, but that the form of government changed along with the definition of what constituted the tribe.
I'm not sure anything makes Johnston a hereditary chief... it's part of Annett's claim that hasn't been supported by the Squamish First Nation. Maybe we should say "claims these actions were authorized by Johnston, who claims he is the hereditary chief" or something like that. Sancho 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Googling the words "Squamish hereditary chief" brings up links to various activities of Johnston, and I believe it is unfair to suggest that Annett dubbed Johnston with this title. Certainly I have seen no evidence that Annett conceived the claim for Johnston. There is also no reason to doubt that Johnston gave authorization, as to what that authorization constitutes I can't say. What would be ideal is to discover a source that explained what the basis for Johnston's claim actually is. (from the original author of the offending lines)69.241.126.114 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Annett does claim that Johnston is the Squamish hereditary chief. It's in the reference from canada.com. I'm not saying that Annett is the sole source that is claiming this, just that he is one of the sources that claim this, and that aside from this, I have no reason to believe that he is a hereditary chief... primarily because I have not looked for other sources... so I remain ignorant as to the truth on this issue. Sancho 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the offending two lines as further research revealed that the issue of hereditary chiefs if more complicated than these lines indicated. It appears that Hereditary chiefs still had an active, if more limited, role in Squamish government after 1923, and while there were changes in 1983 that seem to have limited the role of the hereditary chiefs even further, until some sourced basis for understanding Johnston's claim it is better to leave out the offending lines which are inaccurate. (original author of lines)69.241.126.114 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged supporters

Is Noam Chompsky really a supporter of Annett's work? Annett says so. But has anyone ever checked with a source from someone other than Annett himself? Until then, the modifier should be "alleged" when reference Chompsky's support of Annett's work.

There really needs to be a section in this article outlining the criticisms of Annett's work. Searching through references reveals that most references which seem to support his work, are initiated by him. Chompsky's alleged 'support' is case in point. Can such a section outlining the disagreements people have, first nation and non-first nation, be included - esp. to address those issues of so-called support which eminate from the fellow himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.104.141 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 May 2008

I agree that we can't straight up say "supporters such as Noam Chomsky...", but it's awkward to say "alleged supporters such as Noam Chomsky say...". It's also not clear that "alleged supporter Noam Chomsky" actually said what this article currently claims he said. The source ([3]) seems to be somewhat sarcastic in its first paragraph when it makes reference to this statement of Chomsky's. I'm not sure what the best wording for this section is. We actually don't have to say anything about it if we can't find a clear reference for it — we could just remove the sentence altogether. (Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes after your post: ~~~~. The software will replace them with a signature.) Sancho 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
While the author is critical of Chomsky for praising Annett there is nothing in the way the opening paragraphs are written to indicate that the reader should doubt that Chomsky praised Annett. I don't think it reflects a neutral position to remove these lines based on the unreliablity of the source while keeping the lines about Annett's critics as these lines have the same source. In fact I can't see a reason to use the word alleged here.69.241.126.114 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.126.114 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is - how does Wikipedia discern between a genuine, referenced citation and self-promotion? In 13 years of following the Annett saga there is very little, if any, long-term support that does not eventually lead back to claims Annett makes about himself. I mean, what if someone claimed to be Anastasia, the lost daughter of the czar of Russia, and included a reference to some member of Europe's nobility who backed the claim - then when asked, that person said, "Well, she told me it was so"? At best, then, the 'fact' is that Annett tells people who he is - people like Noam Chompsky have no direct experience of his work other than what he is told through all those self-promotion vehicles, like Annett's 'documentary'. Annett produces all the media about his work, and all the support comes from those who believe the media without seeing the work. Wikipedia should at least note this, so that contextless quotes like Chompsky's are a proper reference for what's going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.104.141 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 May 2008
We don't need to discern between genuine, referenced citations and self-promotion. We just need to state only that which has been previously reported in a reliable source. I'll repeat the first line of WP:V here: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. So if a reliable source has been "fooled" into believing Annett's self-promotion then either we can argue that the source is not reliable, or we allow the material to be included. We also can't include statements in the article that discount the statements sourced to reliable sources without other reliable sources to back up this discounting. For example, if you can find a reliable source that says something like, "people like Noam Chompsky have no direct experience of his work other than what he is told through all those self-promotion vehicles, like Annett's 'documentary'. Annett produces all the media about his work, and all the support comes from those who believe the media without seeing the work.", then we could say something like that in this article, but I've been trying to find a source for something like this and haven't been able to find one. See Wikipedia:SOURCES for the policy on what should or should not be considered a reliable source. (I see you removed the auto-signature that was placed by the signing-bot. Again, please sign your posts.) Sancho 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking time on this. However, this is the nub of the issue in how Annett's wild claims have garnered 'reliability'. Glavin's newspaper article is the first in which some 'reliable source' (as defined by Wikipedia) has put their finger on it. When Canada's Globe and Mail, or the worldwide New Internationalist prints something about Annett specifically, they are only one step removed from his own self promotion. The impact is to obscure the real issues surrounding the churches residential school role, as bad as that was. However, this whole discussion has clarified Wikipedia's role in all this. While appreciating that Wikipedia is up front with its own limitations with regard to the definition of 'reliable sources', it really does open itself up to acknowledging otherwise suspect sources as 'fact'. Granted, not 'fact' as you have described it, but the average Wikipedia reader is not going to do this kind of homework or come to this kind of understanding, they'll simply think it is 'fact' (period). To be devil's advocate here, what's to stop me from starting my own webpage which lists my own gripes against Annett's suspect methods, and then turn around and cite that here? In a sense, that's exactly the method Annett uses. All Wikipedia should then say is, 'well, at least one person doesn't appreciate Annett or his methods', but if I made the page look professional enough it would carry the air of reliability. Heck, if I had the money to make a counter-documentary to his 'Unrepentant', I could unduly bias things the other way on none other than my own say-so. I think Wikipedia needs to be MORE upfront about this, rather than leave it to a single user to do this kind of digging to find out what's-what.207.6.105.157 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the Globe and Mail is Kevin's personal self-promotion tool? 'Wild claims' such as that there was a consistent 50% deathrate in the schools for well over 4 decades? Do you seriously suggest that the Globe and Mail would run a front page story on that just on Kevin's word? There is ample documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul Sovereign (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First, if there is 'ample' documentation, please, please, please, please post it on Kevin's page. I am serious. The United Church has been asking that this documentation of deaths be sent to the RCMP, or at least posted in a manner that it can be dealt with. This is what The United Church means by, 'if anyone has knowledge or documentation, please send copies to relevant authorities.' Indeed, Wikipedia would be such a place, and you would be doing an immeasurable service. With this said, yes, in fact, I am claiming that outlets like the Globe & Mail are periodically taken in by the claims, as are all the other outlets noted in Glavin's article. In the last 13 years, the G&M has done at least 3 front page articles where Annett is quoted, and has never once followed up. In my view it is because they (eventually) do follow-up the documentation of the claims and drop it. Much like the Vancouver Sun did in the summer of 1995 when they first gave print to Annett's story. Please also note that legitimate first nations' groups are themselves developing documentation on what happened in the Residential School era. The Ojibway-run museum in Portage la Prairie is one. Their documented history of abuse at residential schools is different than what is consistantly (and erroneously) claimed by Annett. You may wish to have conversations with news-people (as I have) as to how these things make it to the front page (above the fold!) of the Globe and Mail, and then disappear once an intrigued reporter and a mistaken editor realize that what the source of Annett's material is. But first and foremost - if Annett's claims are amply documented - please, please post the documents for the sake of all. Don't just claim that they are there and leave it at that. Is that not what Wikipedia is for?207.6.102.114 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. We can only rely on what reliable sources have previously published. Sancho 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

People, you're losing perspective here. The issue is thousands of disappeared residential school children; that's not my imagination, it's what even the government is saying now (Globe and Mail, April 24, 2007). I'm simply quoting the sources, like Peter Bryce, the doctor who exposed the fifty percent death rate. I love a debate, but an intelligent one. Try looking over the evidence first, and listen to the survivors, before condemning them and me, wholesale. I know it's easier to prattle on about a white guy rather than face what we've done and the murder we still commit; but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a rational and credible source of knowledge and dialogue. My mistake. Kevin Annett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.123.209 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, feel free to write to Noam and ask him yourself. His email is: chomsky@mit.edu . And - just curious - what makes the united church a "credible source" of information, especially about me (who they cashiered) and the residential school kids they killed? Because they have a name, lawyers and a lot of money? Kevin 216.86.123.209 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums for general discussion of a topic, only for discussion related to improving the article. Nobody has condemned you. We can't use survivors as reliable sources for statements in Wikipedia articles. What statements in the article do you believe are poorly sourced, or incorrect? Sancho 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of "Unrepentent"

Who holds the copyright to this video: Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada's Genocide (documentary)? What license is it released under? If the post of this video to google video is a copyright violation, we can't link to it. Sancho 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was written and produced by Kevin Annett, and posted to Google videos by hiddenfromhistory.org, his own website, so everything's okay. Sancho 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright on any of my work, UNREPENTANT or Hidden from History. Despite the rumours you may hear, I'm not in this for the money. So please feel free to link to it. Kevin Annett www.hiddenfromhistory.org

[edit] NPOV warning

The warning at the top of the page suggests that only Annett is in a conflict of interest regarding this page. The United Church of Canada, any representative thereof, also needs to be named as being in a direct conflict of interest in edits to this article and as a source of references.Angels hope (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you have sourced and verifiable information to contribute using this Talk feature should be more than adequate for you. Think of the process as a peer review. For instance, could you provide any sourced independent information to clarify the issue of Hereditary Chiefs and Chief Kiapilano's claim?69.241.126.114 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)(author of the now deleted offending lines)
The reference to Kevin Annett in the warning is to the article Kevin Annett. It warns that contributors to the article may have a Conflict of Interest. Since you, as I understand it, are the person who the article is about, it applies to you in particular. If others with a personal stake in the content are editing, it applies to them as well. See WP:COI for information about conflicts of interest and WP:AB for the specifics of contributing to an article about yourself. The purpose of the banner is to warn you about editing articles that you have a personal interest in and to alert readers to the fact that the subject of the article is one of its contributors so that they can take that into account when considering the content. Hope that helps. --KenWalker | Talk 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then, a question. Do I have a PERSONAL conflict of interest simply because I am in the United Church of Canada? Yes, Annett would say so. But then, in my opinion, he's simply reflecting his own PERSONAL conflict of interest on the very points that The United Church found him unsuitable for ministry with its sphere of influence. In my opinion, I am at arms' length from these decisions since I was not a part of them - but know enough of them and the process by which they would have come to them to trust that, in the main, they came to the right decision. Now, Wikipedia is being challenged itself with those very same issues - who has the 'say so' in determining these things? The NPOV warning itself hints at what many of us have been saying for years - most (if not all) support for Annett's particular version of residential school work and conclusions eventually either - 1) arises from his own claims about himself, and 2) eventually alientates what little first nations' support he ever has at a particular moment. In some ways, it is heartening to see Wikipedia start coming to some of the same conclusions that many, the United Church included, have long since come to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.104.53 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ken, thanks for your answer. No, i'm not the person in question (several people use this computer), but i do know him. I'm not doing any editing to the article - never have. I raised the question of the banner here because i've seen NPOV banners on other articles that did not mention a specific name. Even tho you point out just above here that the banner would also apply to United Church affiliated editors, that is not immediately apparent and it really looks like the warning applies solely to kevin (as you can see from the triumphant tone in the entry immediately above this) and therefore appears quite UN-neutral. Can the banner not be changed to simply say that there are conflict of interest issues going on in editing of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.119.244 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any semblance of 'triumphalistic' tone. Upon a rereading most of the message you cite raises questions... I mean, can all members of the United Church REALLY be painted with the same monotone brush to eliminate ALL from commenting? Rather than being triumphalistic the last sentence comes from a place of extreme frustration when trying to get the true story out... I mean, from Wiki's point of view, there should at least be a reference to the many United Church opinions (note the plural) out there about Annett's work. To ban a contribution simply because the editor is affliated with the United Church igores that there are many opinions out there... a complete misunderstanding of what the church is. That is part of the extreme frustration of trying to engage this material, because of the war going on over who has the 'say so'.207.6.105.96 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across this page from another. What i would advise, is that you all register accounts. It would help greatly, so that we can all identify who is who, and who does what. Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get registered with an account in a moment. For the moment, in response to the United Church member above, I have never suggested a ban on anyone from commenting - that is what this page is for as i understand it. There is a problem with anyone who feels the need to defend the church's position taking part in the EDITING - they are not neutral, by definition.216.86.123.209 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the nub of the issue, then all that needs to be said is this - the church's 'position' with regard to Annett's ministerial record does not need defending, it is simply the reporting of the public record. The church's position with regard to Annett's residential school claims is to mostly agree with him on one point - it represents a horrid, patriarchial and culturally devastating period of its history. As to the claims Annett makes which go beyond this, the church's position has alwasy been and is today - if you have knowledge of murders, take it to the police for action. This is the church's 'position' which needs no defending, again it is simply a matter of the public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.102.44 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply a matter of "public record" - written, edited, published and disseminated by the United Church of Canada, one of the two non-neutral sides in this dispute and source of all three references in the Education and Ministry part of the article. Murders... how about a live burial? At the Edmonton Indian Residential School, run by the United Church of Canada! NB: it is the school principal, a United Church minister, who tells the child to keep quiet and that he would deal with it himself... http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Hanon_Andrew/2008/02/24/pf-4872425.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul Sovereign (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First, this should be put in the residential schools page on wiki not on the page for kevin annett. This page is about the stuff annett is doing so that a reader can get a sense of who he is. The newspaper article is part of the anecdotal record, which is subject to the same scrutiny as any recovered memory syndrome. This is not to discount the story it is to put it into the proper perspective. But it has nothing to do with annett's biography or the tall tales HE tells or the evidence (like this) he has literally stolen from aboriginals so that he can shove himself to the front of the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.83.253 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're all over the place, here. Murders at residential schools, including United Church residential schools, is what is repeatedly referred to as "wild claims" of Kevin's - the very essence of why people like yourself insist he shouldn't be believed. And yet when I provide but one published story from another source confirming his charges, you say it has nothing to do with Kevin or what he is doing and shouldn't be included in this discussion. It is at the very least worthy of consideration that perhaps it is the United Church that is being less than honest and has no business being used as a reliable source in this biography.Soul Sovereign (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite. The issue in a Wiki article titled with Annett's name is his handling of the topic. I agree with the poster above, the source you site belongs in the residential school page of wiki, as a source that the Mounties rounded up kids and played a role in devastating communites by removing the young. Even that is based on 20-20 hindsight, because the English had been doing that for centuries, calling it public schools for the privileged - Rugby, Eton, Winchester, etc. It was (quite wrongly) called quality education - but we only know that through 20-20 hindsight. The story of the burial of the one-handed boy, still alive, is the story of an atrocity - however, to move it into any meaningful court of law to get a conviction would be insanely difficult by any standards. People should bone up on the usefulness of recovered memory syndrome. We can argue that, but one thing is clear and germane for this topic: What the newspaper article doesn't do is vindicate Annett's handling of sources, which is what this article should be about - Annett. The demonstrable fact is he's wild about his claims and fast and loose about how he puts his own sources together, not to mention the fights he gets into with survivors themselves when they want their video tapes back, and he hoards them. That's part of the abuse he's heaping on people - verifiable through the very sources posted here on Wiki. Once again, United Church archivists have been on the cutting edge of releasing what is there from a period where records were poorly kept - and for very racist reasons, records for individual indigenous kids were not deemed that important back then. We keep looking back with 20-20 hindsight. But, no, the newspaper article does not at all vindicate Annett for his wild claims. Just ask the legitimate researchers like the Portage Ojibway group who are running the Residential School museum, or Malloy. Malloy particularly is just as critical of churches from that period, but spares everyone, including the victims of residential schools, the wild claims. Compared to Annett, the United Church has been a virtual light in this generation of church people committed to the truth no matter what ugliness it shows belongs to the church. I'll take that over Annett's self-agenda any day of the week.207.6.105.86 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Malloy was quoted in the Epoch Times as saying "children were buried three, four, five to a grave -every horror you could imagine took place there" http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-2-14/65938.html - was unmarked mass graves one of the wild claims? Milloy has publicly confirmed unmarked mass graves at the schools.Soul Sovereign (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is off topic, and not appropriate for the talk page of this article. Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic, nor, as in this case, general discussion of a separate topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. Sancho 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning Labels

I suggeast that the current warning be replaced with the following warning.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

There appears to be no evidence to support the current warning's contention that Kevin Annett may be personally contributing to this article. Until such evidence is verified, I suggest that a warning about the controversial nature of the subject is more appropriate. There appear to be two warring sides. A warning can be given to both, but until some evidence emerges that states that either or both parties are engaged in verbal conflict on the pages of this article, a warning that the topic itself is controversial is sufficient warning to the readers of the article. The interests of the readers in unbiased information should come first. Redking123 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the mentioned tag. I had thought the main contributor to the article was the subject of the article. Apparently that is not so. That mistake arose from unsigned and irregularly formatted discussions on the talk page, That being so, I agree that the flag should be removed from the article. If it was being edited by the subject, a better flag would have been this one. Bearing in mind the nature of the subject's point of view and press such as this Tyee article, this tag, this tag, this tag, this tag or this one may be more appropriate. --KenWalker | Talk 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I like two - one which warns of an unbalanced POV, or one which suggests it is a conspiracy theory.207.6.102.114 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What statements that are currently in the article give the impression that this article contains elements of a conspiracy theory? What statements are written from a non-neutral point of view? Sancho 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tyee article seems to suggest that Annett's whole message is a conspiracy theory although none of that message is apparent in the article itself as it stands at the moment. --KenWalker | Talk 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to keep up! I just gave the whole article a read and it is about as bare-bones as it can get. I am now in favour of removing the warning all together for the purposes of the Wikipedia article itself. It is my bias (which of course I'll justify at length if you want!) that when one gets into the sources cited which favour Annett, one reads about a 'conspiracy' aimed at the United Church, when the facts themselves do not support such a conspiracy. Every once in a while such a claim enters into the main article, and it is then that I'd want the conspiracy warning put in, if the material in toto is deemed appropriate and left in. I mean, up thread on this 'discussion' page, we're getting into it with the discussion on the facts of Annett's resignation from St. Andrew's and eventual removal from ministry. I can get into here if you want about how I believe this to be 'spun' by Annett into a conspiracy related to his residential school work when the facts don't warrant it. But suffice it to say that as long as the article remains as bare bones as it is, then I'm in favour of all disclaimers being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.102.172 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment." See WP:SIGN and the banner at the top of this page for the steps involved. --KenWalker | Talk 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As regards the details of any conspiracy theory creeping into the article, I think the ideas presented at Wikipedia:COATRACK can guide us well (although that is only an essay, not guideline nor policy). It hasn't been developed to give any concrete direction, but I think it's a good read, and I agree with the general idea presented in the essay. The idea is, let's keep this article about Kevin Annett, and not about all the details of any incident in his life or theories.Sancho 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed double-posting by 216.86.123.209 from Talk:Kevin Annett#Alleged supporters. Sancho 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)