Talk:Kevin Annett/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

This is far, far, FAR from being an objective or neutral piece! Lots of work to do. 70.54.109.72 (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved some content from Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust because it had to do with Annett and not the book.

I will repeat here what I said on Talk:Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust: to everyone editing, I would recommend making yourselves familiar with several relevant Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:SELF, WP:REF, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In particular:

I fear that in transferring the content from Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust, I removed a lot of content that had been added, because I thought it was inconsistent with the rules I just mentioned. It's not appropriate to speak to the audience in Wikipedia's voice on how you think Annett should be regarded. Extensive deliberation in the article over Annett's personal history is not necessarily encyclopaedic, and likely violates WP:OR.

Happy editing! --Saforrest 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Verifying evidence of the Canadian Holocaust

23 October, 2006:

Much of the criticism concerning the evidence of genocide in Canada has ignored the fact that so-called "anecdotal" evidence, ie, peoples' living testimonies and allegations, are concerned sufficient evidence to prove genocide, according to the Nuremburg Legal Precedents passed at the United Nations in 1950. Supporters of the churches that ran the residential schools tend to belittle this evidence, asking for "real" proof of the crimes alleged by the witnesses. As Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at Nuremburg, pointed out, no regime that committed genocide will keep extensive records and written evidence of their crimes, but will destroy and subvert such evidence. Anecdotal evidence therefore becomes (to wuote Jackson) "critical in the ... detection and prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity".

Also, despite what United, Catholic and Anglican church advocates claim, there does exist considerable non-anecdotal evidence of genocide in their Indian residential schools, held within their own archives and records, which they have thus far denied access to; that fact alone suggests they are actively concealing the evidence they claim is lacking.

The archival, written proof of genocide is indicated in death records and government reports, which have already been published by Kevin Annett in his book "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust". See www.hiddenfromhistory.org for information on this book, and evidence.

Niall O'Reilly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nialsword (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure if the comment about anecdotal evidence was said in reply to what I had posted. In any case, I should clarify that evidence stemming originally from anecdotes is perfectly acceptable evidence on Wikipedia, provided it is adequately sourced.
The main point here is that Wikipedia is not a primary source. Anecdotes are fine if they have been published somewhere else that is notable first (Annett's books are considered to be notable for this purpose). For example
"In Hidden from History, Annett recounts an anecote by X stating that Y happened in 1922."
instead of
"Y happened in 1922."
--Saforrest 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any issues with this article?

I have read the article and it seems clear to me to now be biased against Kevin and not fairly weighted. I noticed that this was done after one editor. I am going to revert it back to the original article and maybe clean it up a bit from some bias.

The current article seems so weighted that it has to be reverted. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The new Statement from Mr. Annett seems to refute what is said above. It is so weighted in Mr. Annett's favour to make one wonder about the objectivity of Wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ([[]]) 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am one named in the article - and object profusely. I think it violates Wiki terms of reference, it is Mr. Annett's opinion of me... not terribly accurate. Stuart lyster (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Stuart Lyster

Well I reverted it back to what it was before. That statement should not be in a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkoconnell (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The last three paragraphs read like the dust jacket of the CD, not exactly 'encyclopedic' content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart lyster (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why only the portions of the article which object to Mr. Annett's activities have proper citations. The last three paragraphs read more like propaganda as opposed to actual verifiable facts. M. Woodall
Be Bold. If you believe citations are missing, you are welcome find sources to support either side of the claim. However, I've noticed this article is fairly biased FOR him. ie. There's absolutely no authority or by law on what he had done in Toronto and Vancouver yesterday except trying to get the media attention, imo and why did he chose to get ordained by the UCC and then when they decided to kick him out, the protests began? --Cahk (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to create a new section specifically talking about why he was removed from the UCC? Despite my best efforts, the only websites supporting Mr. Annett's work seem to be ones which are created by or closely affiliated with his group. Most of the established organizations involved in that area of work denounce what Mr. Annett is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.58.250 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Whenever a section detailing the how's and why's of Mr. Annett's removal from the United Church has been added here, it has become vandalized to the point where Wikipedia pulls it. Perhaps what is here presently is the best statement that can be made on a service such as this, and readers are required to actually look into the citations. There are few, if any, citations in favour of Annett's work that are not at some point generated by him. On the contrary, the last ten years have left a debris trail of citations from most of the places that once supported his work - New Internationalist Magazine, IRHAAM, The Circle of Justice, Blackfoot elder James Craven, not to mention the United Church itself. Most of these groups or people initially shared the worthy cause he claims to be advancing, but soon discover his real intent and distance themselves. He manages to whip up personal support among some First Nations people, claiming that criticism of him and his methods is also criticism of their objections to Residential Schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.172.161 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of balancing the article (despite I do not agree with his tactics in promoting his cause) IF anyone can find citations/sources for it. Note: websites, articles wrote by him or anyone affiliated with him can not be used as a source (conflict of interest amongst others). However, based on a preliminary research I done, I can only see he's been doing damages everywhere he affiliated so I am a bit skeptical anyone will find the other side of the equation.--Cahk (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If "websites, articles wrote by him or anyone affiliated with him can not be used as a source (conflict of interest amongst others)", then the same has to be said for anything said or sourced by the United Church of Canada and anyone affiliated with it. And I apologize if i misread what you've written here, Cahk, but you seem to have definite feelings about the subject of this bio which would not lend to neutral editing - possibly that is what Kirkoconnell points to at the end of the next post.216.86.119.244 (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is my opinion on this right now, I do not like how this article is going. For one, he is becoming a mess again. When I reverted this a few weeks ago, it had delveoped into a mess. I am not involved with this at all. I don't know anyone, I am just a random Wikipedia user who came upon Kevin's name when looking for documentaries to watch. I think clearly there are people here with a vested interest in promoting one side or another with this article. Also I do not like the aka inclusion of Kevin's name. I believe he goes by Kevin Annett... if he goes by Kevin McNamee-Annett then fine but saying aka make him sound like he should be on a wanted poster, hardy NPOV. Current news articles and things that are not directly linked to Kevin should be removed. It is clear to me from some of the comments on this page, most of the people editting are likely too biased to provide the balancing this article may need. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? AKA is used alot on different wiki articles and how does that make it an issue with NPOV? As to balacing, like I said, Be Bold. You're welcome to find sources that will support either side of the equation, but like I said, I am skeptical that you will find much based on a quick research that I did. --Cahk (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things, one - I hope it is not Wikipedia policy to discount things simply on the basis that it has a bias. Everything can be seen to be biased, in fact if things were excluded because it had a bias then there'd be nothing to put into any article at all. I think the better issue would be if it were an unfair bias, or a bias that simply was one person's opinion, rather than something with a citation associated with it. For instance, the Squamish First Nation seems to have a very definite bias against Mr. Annett... the issue is, is that an unfair bias? Second, the name McNamee-Annet was what Mr. Annett used as his last name from his marriage until about 1996. A lot of searches on the 'net (like in Google) need this information to get a better sense of what's what with the fellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.172.161 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs referencing badly

The first two paragraphs of the "Background" section seem to be only sourced from his own biography. I've found a couple of references now that didn't support the material in this article, and one that was a mailing list posting. As per WP:BLP, most of this article should be deleted. I'm trying to reference as much as I can before I do that though. Sancho 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... check it out. I removed everything that I couldn't find a reliable source for and the article became pretty neutral sounding (at least to me anyway). Let's try to keep this article well referenced throughout its future development. I'd still like to find a third party source for some of the information that comes from his own (auto)-biography. It's pretty unimportant stuff though, so I don't think it's too bad (just when and where he ministered). Sancho 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

also, a third party source for the United Church's allegations is just as sorely needed Angels hope (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a supposedly NEUTRAL article gets vandalized by a pro-Annett support, if not Mr. Annett himself. In this supposed encyclopaedic piece, Annett argues the case that he's argued in times past - the same argument that has received only marginal support in Canada's first nations communities, and no support in academic circles. Can not someone from Wikipedia do something about this? The additions even admit not being "verified facts", but are submitted for "information purposes". How does THAT belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.102.16 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the 'suppose facts' that are not 'facts' from the article.--Cahk (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Apr 8 ... Why was my addition removed? The source was referenced. This is the second time I have had material removed from this page. Please defend your actions, because it appears to me to be an indication of bias in Wikipedia. grannysaga@gmail.com The first two 2008 entries are very biased against Kevin. I was trying to balance that with better info. However, without that balance, the 2008 entries must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannysaga (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suppose to be a collect of fact. Based on what you add, 'supposed fact' (that's what part of your text read) is not real facts, they are biased towards either side of the discussion and thus failed to achieve NPOV policy of Wikipedia. In addition, the use of the material seems like advertising to me.

You've removed the protests section which was, properly cited and not biased. The fact that he protested was a fact but if you see that as bias, you are welcome to Be Bold and find sources against it. However, sources written by himself will fail NPOV.--Cahk (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The "protests" section IS biased. It isn't even true! The young people removed from the church by police were not part of the protest, and that is made clear in the sources you cite. There is no support for your statement "not only outside ... but in the sanctuary itself" in the sources you cite, and that was not the case. Consequently, I have removed it again.

The section I added DID include the source of the information, for others to verify themselves, as I made clear. I did not use the term "supposed facts". Again, you do not tell the truth and your bias is obvious. All of the information on wiki about Kevin Annett is biased and you will not allow other info to be posted to provide a balance. I object, and I will continue to pursue this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannysaga (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I do not know how to send a message, but I do believe my post was "censored" by wiki ... if you represent 'wiki', and yet it was more accurate and true to its sources than yours. The 2008 Protests section must be edited for both accuracy and bias. This time, you should actually READ your sources to report accurately. Your bias on this topic is obvious, and I'll bet I know who signs your paycheque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannysaga (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need your glasses, then may I suggest you read what you've posted,[1] "Note: These 'Facts' are reproduced here for information purposes, to provide a additional perspective on the residential schools, but are not considered verified 'fact'. " They are posted by you and are your work, now you tell me you didn't say that? Oh wait.. that's right, you just copy and pasted it without reading it. Other editors removed that part because it is clearly biased and it's a blatant advertisement of his work, violating the Conflict of Interest policy.
"young people removed from the church by police were not part of the protest" May I suggest you SERIOUSLY read what other editors have wrote? I can't find anything that mentions 'young people'. Did he protest? Yes. Did he disrupt church service? You Bet. Did Squamish First Nation issued a statement? Uh huh. Did he disrupt once again during Easter? Umm.. Yea! Nothing of that paragraph is un-true, unless you can find sources to back up your claim, I will revert your edit. Mind you it wasn't even my edit to begin with so accusing me won't get your argument any further.
I do not represent Wiki just as any other editors on Wiki. If you actually read my posts on this talk page, you know I encouraged people to find sources to back up opposite claims. However, the sources you posted are simply not acceptable - conflict of interest, NPOV, amongst others.--Cahk (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Grannysaga: I checked over the "2008 protests" section and see no problem. It seems accurate, and simply reports what is the case (as told by reliable sources). Also the "facts" that you added are not about the subject of this article, Kevin Annett, so they make no sense to place in this article regardless of their verifiability. (I'd also take you up on your bet as to who signs my paycheque.) Sancho 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)