Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings

Text source integrity analysis

I will use this section to compare statements made in the article and see if there's anything in the sources cited to support said statements. Stay tuned, hopefully a fresh set of eyes helps here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement in article	Does the cited source support this?
A report by CBC News in 2024 identified at least 24 arsons at Christian churches in Canada between May 2021 and December 2023. Of the arsons, nine resulted in arrests, with law enforcement not identifying a motive in incidents resulting in criminal charges. The investigation identified a relationship between the arsons and increased reporting on the gravesites.	Yes to the 24 number per "Investigators have determined that 24 were deliberately set while others are still under investigation" but the source also notes that "33 Canadian churches that burned to the ground since May 2021". Yes to nine arrests but phrasing regarding the motive should be clearer: "Most of the fires remain unsolved. Of the 33 major church fires since 2021, just nine have led to arrests". No to the last sentence, this appears to be original research. (This is more complicated, see discussion below). [1]
On June 21, 2021, two Catholic church buildings in British Columbia were destroyed in fires: Sacred Heart Mission Church of Penticton	Yes, source states "Bishop Gregory Bittman of Nelson said he was “very saddened” at the fires that destroyed Sacred Heart and St. Gregory’s churches." The source also verifies the date. [2]
and St. Gregory Mission Church on Osoyoos land.	Yes, the source verifies a fire happening the same day as Sacred Heart's and a Catholic bishop is quoted as saying that both these churches were destroyed. [3]
St. Gregory's Church was constructed in 1910. The Osoyoos fire was about 40 kilometres south from the Penticton fire and began a few hours later. As of January 2024, neither fire had resulted in criminal charges. The congregation at Osoyoos began utilizing the band council office on Sundays and do not intend to rebuild their church.	Yes, the caption on an image in the source verifies the 1910 date. No to direction? It's possible I'm visualizing this wrong but the source says "Hours earlier, someone also set fire to the Sacred Heart Church on the Penticton Indian Band about 40 kilometres north of Osoyoos." No to the third sentence. (This is more complicated, see my thoughts below). Yes to the last sentence.
After further fires near Penticton following reports of over 900 unmarked graves discovered at former Canadian Indian residential school sites, Royal Canadian Mounted Police sergeant Jason Bayda said that the fires being at "four churches, all Catholic, all on indigenous land, that in itself is extremely suspicious".	Paywalled source so I can't easily access its veracity. The CBC source cited earlier makes me concerned that this quote might be WP:UNDUE without more context. Yes, this quote is present in the text. The 900 graves figure is also mentioned, with the article stating that "Police said its investigation is looking into whether the four fires are connected."
On June 26, another two British Columbian Catholic churches–St. Ann's Church and Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church serving Chopaka–were also destroyed by fires declared "suspicious" by police.	BBC source says these fires were declared suscipious by police but simply calls the church in Chopoka "Chopaka Church", doesn't explicitly say Our Lady of Lourdes. It does give the exact name for St. Ann's. Date given is more iffy, the article was published then and article says someone received a call "in the morning" about the fires, but this doesn't necessarily mean that morning. [4] I'd remove the reference to the extra source given here because it doesn't verify any of this really. [5]
A fire at an Anglican church was also discovered that day, but it was extinguished with minimal damage.	Yes, might not want to say "that day" given what I wrote above, but this source does explicitly confirm the June 26 date. The source also verifies the rest of the statement.
St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church in Indian Brook, Nova Scotia, suffered a fire causing damage to the building on June 30, 2021. Police described the fire at St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church as "suspicious" and announced an investigation, adding that the church fires in western Canada were "something that our investigators will certainly be aware of when they're conducting this investigation".	Yes, although the fire marshall is also quoted as saying "he doesn't know why the fire was deemed suspicious, but that the determination is often made if accelerants are located at the scene, or if witness statements or surveillance video indicate suspicious circumstances".
Another fire occurred on June 30, 2021, at St. Jean Baptiste Church in Morinville, Alberta. The fire was immediately deemed suspicious by investigators, but no charges have been made in relation to the fire as of 2024. The 1908-built church was completely destroyed. Fundraising by the congregation aimed to support construction on a new church building, to begin in spring 2024 with the goal of completing by Christmas in 2025. The destroyed church's bells were recovered and are set to be installed in the new church.	Yes, although the source states that the first mass was held there in 1908 which doesn't necessarily mean that was the same year it was built, especially since said mass took place on New Year's Day.
Two fires on the night of July 1–2 destroyed an Anglican church on native land and damaged another. The fire that destroyed the abandoned 108-year-old St. Paul's Anglican Church of New Hazelton, British Columbia, was the second suspicious fire at that church in a week; a smaller fire had damaged a door.	No to the date. Source says "were destroyed by fires early Saturday" about two other church fires and article was published on June 28, so this couldn't have taken place in the future. The source verifies that St. Paul's Anglican Church burned but doesn't state the exact age, just that it was built in the 1800s and was also an abandoned church. The source also states it wasn't affiliated with residential schools. No to anything about a door and the church wasn't destroyed as it "was quickly extinguished with minimal damage and no injuries".
Authorities worried the flames could spark wildfires	This source actually verifies the text written above, although only to the July 1 date and it doesn't mention anything about a door. It seems like there was an initial minimal damage fire before this one. The source also states that "Manseau said the fires are of significant concern as the province is currently under extreme wildfire risk" which isn't quite the same as being worried this specific fire could spark wildfires.
A separate fire, also in British Columbia, did significant damage to a portion of the St. Columba Anglican Church in Tofino.	Debatable on what is meant by significant damage to a portion with detail given in source, as it says the "fire destroyed part of a wall, but was extinguished before any more damage was done." Part of a wall can mean varying levels of damage.
A RCMP investigation was launched shortly after what police initially determined to be an "incendiary device" was thrown through the window of St. Patrick Co-Cathedral in Yellowknife, resulting in moderate damage.	Yes to fire existing, name and location. No to incendiary device as the source says "The cause of the fire isn't yet known, though a statement from the diocese that oversees the church suggested it involved an incendiary device." A statement from the diocese is not equivalent to police ruling this was the cause. No to moderate damage as the source explicitly says "minor damage".
The Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Redberry Lake burned to the ground on the afternoon of July 8; this fire was also called "suspicious" by the RCMP.	Yes.
On July 9, the Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church was destroyed by arson. The church was located in the Kehewin Cree Nation, south of Bonnyville, and was slated for demolition after it was left vacant for "several years". A youth was arrested by the Bonnyville RCMP and charged for the arson. The charged youth was released with a court date set for September 2021.	Yes.
A report released by CBC News in January 2024 identified 24 arsons and five suspected arsons at Christian churches in Canada after May 2021. Of the 24 arsons, nine resulted in arrests, with law enforcement not identifying a motive in incidents resulting in criminal charges, though police reported awareness of "potential motivators". Two fires at Canadian churches during the May 2021–December 2023 period covered by the CBC report were ruled accidental by investigators; 14 churches were destroyed by fires in the period between January 1, 2019 and May 2021. Two other incidents of church fires, both in rural Alberta during 2023, resulted in two pairs of people receiving criminal charges.	Everything seems fine except the last sentence. The source states "Alberta RCMP also charted a significant rise in overall arson attacks on church properties in the province. There were eight fires between May 2019 and May 2021, and 29 fires between June 2021 and September 2023" but I'm not seeing anything about two specific incidents that involved criminal charges unless I'm missing something. I'm also not seeing anything explicitly saying rural Alberta although the areas under RCMP jurisdiction part is mentioned (which would imply that it's rural but is a possible synthy conclusion to make).
Several motives have been speculated regarding the arsons. In June 2021, following the Penticton and Osoyoos fires, government investigators suggested possible motives included the targeting of Indigenous communities and anger towards the Catholic Church over their role in operating residential schools between 1883 and 1996	No, the source states that "He said that police were not speculating on the circumstances." Information about speculated motives are provided by Indigenous leaders and a fire department chief.
In July 2021, after additional fires, fire chiefs pointed to the fires beginning on National Indigenous Peoples Day when asserting that the fires were not coincidental.	Yes, the source states "Fire chiefs said the timing of the blazes, which began on National Indigenous People’s Day, did not seem coincidental." I think we should be careful on the phrasing here but the source does verify this statement.
A July 2021 Wall Street Journal story noted that nobody had claimed responsibility for the fires and added that both Canadian law enforcement and politicians speculated "the churches are being targeted by those angry about the recent discovery of unmarked graves", but that Canadian police did not have evidence of a connection "in most cases".	A paywalled source I do not have access to, unless this is a duplicate ref to the WSJ source cited earlier on.
The January 2024 CBC News investigation cited community leaders and an Indigenous history research that identified a relationship between the arsons and anger regarding the gravesites. The same investigation quoted one law enforcement official as saying that suspected motivations appeared "as varied as the people themselves", who came "from all walks of civil life, many different backgrounds".	I commented on the WP:HEADLINE aspect below in regards to "identified a relationship between the arsons and anger regarding the gravesites". The quote is present in the source.
The CBC News investigation identified that the church arsons began following the announcement of potential unmarked gravesites at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Scholar of Indigenous Canadian history Paulina Johnson commented on the church fires, saying "for many Indigenous peoples, it gives them a voice, because for the longest time Canada hasn't really hasn't actually acknowledged us", adding she believed that the failure to address injustices against Indigenous peoples was responsible for the church fires.	Noting that the source states that "the RCMP found nothing to link any of the fires". The source also does state that its investigation linked the burnings to the discovery of unmarked graves at Kamloops. Paulina Johnson does say these words at the start of an interview.
Chief Greg Gabriel of the Penticton Indian Band expressed "anger" at the fires, stating that any act of arson was "unacceptable"	No, there is no Chief Greg Gabriel quoted in this source. I think there may have been a mix-up here with some other cited source.
Grand Chief Stewart Philip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band denounced the fires, but said they were "not really surprising" following the discovery of unmarked graves at residential schools. Louie declared the fires "a criminal act" and "arson".	Yes, both sources verify these statements.
Grand Chief Arthur Noskey of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta and Loon River First Nation said the churches needed protecting as "potential evidence sites" and that sites of former residential schools need to be protected.	Yes, the source supports this. I will also note that the source states "Even though speculation has been widespread, no official connection between a string of church burnings that have happened across Canada in recent days and the unmarked grave sites has been made."
Chief Keith Crow of the Lower Similkameen Indian Band (location of the Chopaka church) stated "I'm angry ... I don't see any positive coming from this and it's going to be tough."	Yes.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney declared on June 30 that the Morinville fire "appears to have been a criminal act of hate inspired violence."	Yes.
On July 2, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the vandalism and arson attacks targeting Canadian churches "wrong and unacceptable",	The quote's exact phrasing is "It is unacceptable and wrong that acts of vandalism and arson are being seen across the country, including against Catholic churches".
while later adding that the anger directed towards the church was "fully understandable" and "people have gone decades and even generations living with intergenerational trauma, with outcomes and institutional racism that has created extreme difficulties for Indigenous peoples across this country that are also the legacy of residential schools"	Trudeau is partially quoted here but not the whole way. The CBC source cited above verifies the entire quote so I'd just move the ref to the end of the sentence to fix that. I'm also not sure why the cited source says "Indian County Today" when it's actually the Calgary Herald.
Trudeau, in his comments on the fires, added that the anger towards the Catholic Church was "fully understandable given the shameful history".	Another incorrect citation as this is to PBS News and not NPR. It was originally published by the Associated Press. Trudeau is only partially quoted here as well, but reciting to the above Calgary Herald source would support this (it is not present in the CBC quotes).
Former chief Chastity Daniels of the Gitwangak First Nation condemned the July 1 fire at St. Paul's Anglican Church saying "it wasn't a Catholic church, it was an Anglican church and there's nothing but good memories in that church for our community."	Yes.
A group of residential school survivors called for people to stop burning and defacing churches. Jenn Allan-Riley, a Sixties Scoop survivor and daughter of a residential school survivor, stated that "Burning down churches is not in solidarity with us Indigenous people" and "we do not destroy other people's places of worship"	Yes although first source says "group" and second source says "Two Indigenous leaders are calling for an end to church burning, including an assistant Pentecostal minister." Given the thumbnail for the Global News video shows three people, I'm inclined to think the latter CTV news description is more accurate.
Harsha Walia, the executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association responded to reports of fires at indigenous Catholic parishes with a tweet on June 30 that read "burn it all down". Some members of the First Nations community criticized her but the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs expressed support for her without mentioning the controversial tweet.	She did say "burn it all down" but Global News has issued a correction at the top of the article that states "This story has been updated with additional Tweets from Naomi Sayers which state: “Burn it all down. Doesn’t literally mean, burn it down.” Ms. Sayers subsequently advised Global News, through her lawyer, that she doesn’t support burning down churches." The last sentence is true but possible synth because the article just quotes the tweet expressing their support of Walia. Only one specific person (Chris Sankey) is mentioned as criticizing her for this tweet, but the article does state "The tweet set off a firestorm on social media".
She resigned as executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association over the issue on July 16, 2021.	Yes.
Statement added since my original analysis: As of January 2024, 12 people were charged in relation to the arsons. Of these, six were from Indigenous communities where churches were burned and one–the youth charged in relation to the Kehewin Cree church fire–was convicted	Yes
Statement added since my original analysis: A fire at a Coptic Orthodox church was determined to be the result of mental illness and unrelated to the residential schools, resulting in a conviction. One other fire resulted in another conviction.	The source verifies that a fire that took place in Surrey was related to the perpetrator's mental health issues but does not specify a Coptic Orthodox Church.

I am going to bed now. I will resume this tomorrow when I'm awake. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The source review on the St. Gregory fire seems a bit confused. The source says "Hours earlier, someone also set fire to the Sacred Heart Church on the Penticton Indian Band about 40 kilometres north of Osoyoos." That means that the Penticon fire started first and 40 kilometers north of Osoyoos. This would mean that the Osoyoos fire started a few hours later, 40 kilometers south. When I adjusted that portion of the article, I put the fires in chronological order. You say "No" to the second sentence, which is the bit about the directions. Did you mean the third sentence? WSJ sent your way, and the issue with the CBC News bit in the lead has hopefully been tidied. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was the third sentence I was talking about there. I've corrected the table to reflect that. As for direction, I put a question mark there because I read it a few times and I wasn't quite sure if I was parsing it right. But "The Osoyoos fire was about 40 kilometres south" compared to "about 40 kilometres north of Osoyoos" seemed to be contradictory. It's entirely possible the way I'm visualizing this is wrong and there's no contradiction there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the contradiction but get why that passage is confusing. We can nix the directions altogether and say "40 kilometres apart". As to the third sentence, it's sourced to the cited reference where it says "No one has ever been charged in either the Osoyoos or Penticton fires." ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that sentence that you just quoted here. From an editor's standpoint, I'm not sure we should be saying this? As far as I can tell the source doesn't explicitly state this case was ruled as arson, although Clarence Louie is quoted as saying "I was upset that some rez punks did arson." There's an implication there that there should be criminal charges laid if we're saying this hasn't happened yet but it doesn't look like anyone has actually been identified as a culprit. It's possible I'm being too picky here but I do think we need to be careful with what we do and do not say in article like this. I hope to get through more of this table today but I'm really trying to take my time with it to make sure I'm not missing things and also there's other stuff going on in my life right now. I can't always be on Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was concerned for the same reason when I was adjusting that paragraph: it's not described as an arson by any officials besides the chief (who is a significant authority, albeit not an expert). Since the CBC News report says no one was charged, I think not including the possibly off-the-cuff statements from the chief about "rez punks" but including the statement that "no one has been charged" balances what's included in the sources against Wikipedia's efforts to avoid overly emphasizing a given narrative. Let me know what you think in light of that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the "rez punks" quote be included, just that's the only statement in the source that could support that statement and it's speculation. "No one has been charged" implies an actual crime was committed and there doesn't seem to be anything in the source saying that this specific case was officially ruled as arson. We just don't have that information. I think the sentence should be omitted in light of that but other editors may disagree with me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the two Anglican church fires on July 1—2 (this source confirms the dates), all that seems to have been necessary was moving the citation forward. I've tweaked the phrasing a bit regarding the wildfire concerns. Regarding saying that no one had been charged in the two earlier fires at Penticton and Osoyoos, the source says "No one has ever been charged in either the Osoyoos or Penticton fires". I'd also challenge No to the last sentence, this appears to be original research, as the article's subheading reads "CBC investigation finds steep rise in church fires since reports of potential graves at residential schools". ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, the subheadline can be used to contextual the rest of the CBC News article, rather than referenced independently (WP:HEADLINE). The dates for the before and after were contextualized as coming after the Kamloops gravesite announcement, with "In the weeks after the announcement in Kamloops, 11 churches in western Canada were burned to the ground in cases determined to be arson by investigators", which is contrasted against the 14 total wholly-destructive church fires from all causes during the preceding 2.5 year period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that the article states that "No one has ever been charged in either the Osyoos or Penticton fires", my rationale above is why we might not necessarily want to say something like that in the article. I did, however, miss that subheading. I'd make it clearer that it's CBC making this connection and not official police investigations into the matter. As for the July 1-2 dates, where does it confirm all the dates? I really am just seeing support for July 1 but it's possible I'm missing something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think you might be misinterpreting WP:HEADLINE? It says News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. Which would suggest we don't want to have that sentence even if it might not be per se OR. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're totally good about the dates thing; it's kinda buried. See this news piece which says St. Paul's in "New Hazelton was completely destroyed on Thursday night" (July 1, 2021). The "church in Tofino was also set ablaze at about 4 a.m. PT on Friday" (July 2). Considering that there is substantial and lasting coverage regarding the Osoyoos and Penticton fires, I'd say noting that charges haven't been levied in either case is good: it indicates that suspicions exist but also caveats that law enforcement hasn't actually found anyone responsible (which is a neutral fact that can be read in a number of ways). RE the OR, see my 23:23 comment. I'll hop off for a bit so I don't keep stepping on your toes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind. You can comment whenever you have the time. We might not agree on everything but once factual information is verified, people can start arguing about the specifics on how to present it or not at all. Hopefully a finished table will help as a starting point for these conversations to actually progress instead of a constant back and forth. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, hence my reply only to the subjective elements or the factual issues. Keep up the very good work; definitely appreciative of your effort and willingness to rapidly tackle this task from a standing-start. I think all of the other yet-unreviewed references are either accessible on the WayBack or through the Library, but let me know if you have trouble with anything. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I don't know why I didn't look for one before, but it only now occurred to me that the CBC News report probably also got a video feature. It did—8:46 in length—and it's chock-full of added context to the online written story and adds some material otherwise wholly left out. Specifically, it establishes the Osoyoos church fire as "a crime scene" (0:10), provides the only source I'm aware of that a conviction was made in the Alberta Cree church fire (3:44), states "the surge in church fires began following the discovery of potential unmarked graves" (4:06), and more firmly establishes Paulina Johnson's credentials as an expert in Indigenous resistance and adds context to her perspective that the fires were "much more than just arson" but instead acts made in the context of a broader symbolic resistance (6:35). It also points out that the RCMP has not found evidence to link the fires (3:57), though this statement is a bit vague and might mean a.) the fires weren't coordinated (which is my interpretation) or b.) RCMP is asserting they have absolutely zero evidence that the fires have anything in common. Anyhow, I'll add some material from this video over the next 24 (I owe two GANs my attention). Let me know if you have playback issues; I did. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this video sometime tomorrow (or maybe the day after?). I have some things to do that might get in the way. But I've reached my limit for what I'm willing to do in one day. Hopefully Elinruby will have some thoughts at some point (or maybe when I'm done the table?). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a really bad headache right now so I don't particularly like the idea of listening to a video at the moment. I will get back to this eventually but I think it's for the best if I just continue providing the textual analysis that I was doing before. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Please take of your health. I note that you say that there was a negative return for government investigators suggested possible motives. That is actually verified in the source. See "Bob Graham, chief of the Oliver Fire Department, which fought the St. Gregory’s fire and is helping investigate it" as the fire chief. I'm not sure why you reported that as false, considering a government investigator is quoted making that speculation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To add slighly more context to what I said in the box, the full quote is "Sergeant Jason Bayda, a spokesman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the region, said that while the area was known for its wildfires, acts of arson were very rare. He said that police were not speculating on the circumstances." The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the national police service for Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"Government investigators" is a no, but if you want to change the statement to specify that it was only the fire chief saying that, then yes, the source would support that statement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I will note that the next sentence already says something similar so I'm not sure if it'd actually be all that useful to change said sentence. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss this review and some concerns I have when you're a little more well. I'm going to be off the grid for the most part until Monday on a visit back to my home state of Colorado (with periodic check-ins for a GAN review). If I'm nowhere to be found, ping me on my talk. If I'm still nowhere to be found, then presume the wolves got me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm here when you're ready. My headache isn't life threatening and hopefully I'll get around to watching the CBC News video at some point. If ref 22 is a different WSJ cite than ref 8 (which seems likely), I'd appreciate a copy of that at some point. I'd also like to say that the RCMP is literally an agency of the Canadian government (as our article on it states). This website gives a good overview of what they do: [6] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I see the issue: you're saying that because the RCMP didn't speculate, government investigators didn't speculate. This is incorrect, as the source indicates that the fire chief—who is a government investigator in this case—did speculate. The article doesn't say "police" in that case, it says government, and fire chiefs are members of the government who often serve as investigators. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just that, it's plural. If it's only one person saying something, it should be attributed to them. Personally I'm not comfortable with calling a fire chief's opinion the conclusion of "government investigators", it leads more weight to his speculation than the official stance of the literal RCMP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the table again. Apologies for the last bit taking so long, it was difficult to find the motivation to continue this. I believe the only statement left to analyze is from the WSJ source I do not have access to (different from the one that was emailed to me earlier). Courtesy pings to Elinruby and Pbritti. Ping me back if either of you have concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Clovermoss! As Due to circumstances unrelated to your good-faith and deeply appreciated efforts, I'm unfortunately uncomfortable continuing discussion much further here. I'll only respond to the last one, regarding the denomination, as a case of BLUESKY. There was only one fire at a church in Surrey that night and certainly only one fire that spurred charges. The denomination is widely reported elsewhere as Coptic Orthodox (and a citation identifying it as such is furnished immediately adjacent to the statements). If this is insufficient, reply here and I'll sort that out. If you wish to discuss this article further, please reach me at my talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Catholic Civil Rights League data

The reverted lines with citation according to this diff [7] are as follows

Data compiled by the Catholic Civil Rights League indicates that at least 85 Catholic churches were damaged by fire or vandalism since May 27, 2021.

from the lead section, and this

Data available with the Catholic Civil Rights League indicates that at least 85 Catholic churches were damaged by fire or vandalism following the discovery of 215 potential unmarked graves near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School on May 27, 2021.

in the Church Burning section.

The Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada maintains a Church Attacks Database at their site ccrl.ca cataloging attacks against Catholic churches in Canada ranging from the breaking of stained-glass windows to acts of desecration and church burnings according to this source[8]. As a legitimate organisation of lay Catholics of Canada their independent data of numbers regarding the issue should be included for the sake of WP:NPOV. For neutrality article is in need of numbers from Church's side. Also the factual reliability of the cited source America (Magazine) isn't questionable, therefore the removal is unwarranted.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

CBC article verification

Can anyone point to the specific source (and timestamp, if it's the video) where "Anti-Christian sentiment" is mentioned as a motive? I read the 2024 CBC article and watched the 2024 CBC video but didn't spot it.

I had forgotten about this revert until now, but it's related. In it, Pbritti also points to the CBC article saying the fires are a "continuing phenomenon". Where is that? The best I can find there is a mention of fires through "December 2023", not 2025. The CBC also seems to be the only source that's looking at fires after June/July 2021, which makes me question how DUE it is. Regardless, they're a reliable source so perhaps we could change the article to something like "June and July 2021 (and perhaps extending to December 2023)[source]". Otherwise we'd really need sources from 2025 stating definitively that this is an ongoing situation. Woodroar (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Working a bit backwards, the question of whether CBC is due or undue in detailing the post-2021 fires is a bit irrelevant, as the mention of those later fires is lumped in by this reliable source that serves as the only comprehensive post-2021 assessment of the fires. Because we don't have a source firmly saying that the uptick in fires has ended, we are in a bit of a bind and can really identify a start date to all this but will have to wait until a retrospective provides a firm end date. The CBC source, particularly through its interview with the researcher, identifies anti-Christian sentiment as a component of the anti-colonialist action that the fires have been attributed to. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the quote from the source which supports the statement. I just watched it again, the researcher does not identify anti-Christian sentiment as a component of the anti-colonialist action. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I've now watched that portion of the video a half dozen times... What you assured us was true doesn't appear to be so. It also doesn't seem to be open to interpretation either, the Professor doesn't even say anything close to that. Are you perhaps getting this source confused with another one? Or perhaps you saw a version with a longer interview segment? It could have been edited down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, my memory served poorly. The commentary from the CBC reporter and the additional context from the chief from between 4:00 and 4:40 in the video contextualizes this as the result of "long-simmering resentment of the church" boiling over following the announcement regarding the likely graves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

And how do you get anti-Christian sentiment from that? Resentment of a particular church is not resentment of Christians writ large, this does fail verification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"The church" is almost universal parlance for Christianity writ large. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In the context of the video "the church" is clearly the Roman Catholic Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

They're talking about fires at Catholic and Anglican parishes and make no effort to specify is exclusively about the Catholic Church. Regardless, this would verify that there was anti-Christian sentiment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's clear that they're talking about the entirety of the religion or just the local church(es) that were responsible for the graves. I also can't believe that we're cherry-picking speculation from a chief even though the CBC repeatedly says that there's no known motive beyond "mental health issues" in one case and that "The RCMP says it found nothing to link any of the fires".

As for a "firm end date", we have one: December 2023. That's the latest case we have a source for, according to the CBC article updated in June 2024. That's 6 months later. We can't simply assume that cases of arson are continuing when no source actually says that. Woodroar (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to question the intention here. We are ignoring the obvious meaning of a highly reliable source (as well as the expert opinion of a tribal chief). We are then saying that this it would be undue cherry-picking to source that statement from the CBC. Then we're saying that it's not undue to use the same CBC article to source something it doesn't even say. I can't help but feel that there's a lack of understanding here. I've been intimately involved with the articles related to the residential school graves for over three years now. I've worked for tribal governments. Given this experience, please take it from me that when I say that it's evident that you're out of your depth on this particular matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the CBC pointed, tribal officials, and relevant government officials all identify this as partially the result of resentment against Christian groups stemming from colonialist abuses, we can put this to rest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The Premier does not identify this as partially the result of resentment against Christian groups stemming from colonialist abuses. Once again you are misrepresenting a source. That same article also specifies "hate toward the Catholic Church" it actually used Catholic six times but the only use of Christian is in a quote... And unless I'm missing something the articles aren't talking about Christian colonial abuses they're talking about Catholic ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean implied not obvious? You're not arguing for the obvious reading. You're arguing for something other than what was said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean obvious. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Amalgamation of stories is that https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/church-fires-canada-1.7055838 Moxy🍁 03:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Well that summarizes the chief's point as "contempt for Catholicism" which suggests that Pbritti is wrong about church in that context meaning all Christians and not the Catholic Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You're arguing for an interpretation, not the plain/obvious meaning. You're arguing that it means something other than what it says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's pause for a second: are you arguing that "contempt for Catholicism" being a motivator would not qualify as "anti-Christian sentiment"? Are you aware that many of the churches burned in relation to the gravesites have been Anglican or other denominations? I have to wonder if the new ArbCom ruling might need to be applied here, and an editor's perspective on religion might be biasing them against what sourcing indicates. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, the he in "While he doesn't hide his contempt for Catholicism, he's angry that someone torched St. Gregory's," isn't a suspected perpetrator, its the chief. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You're ignoring the reporting immediately before that which extends the contempt to Christian groups beyond Catholicism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How? The enitirety of the article before that is "In a barren field of sagebrush alongside a road through the Osoyoos Indian Band, Chief Clarence Louie stands atop a concrete pad and surveys the rubble in front of him. This used to be the front entrance to St. Gregory's, the simple wooden church that hosted countless community celebrations, dinners and religious services, on the reserve just north of the Canada-U.S. border in central B.C. The church had stood for more than one hundred years as a symbol of the Catholic faith, but on June 21, 2021, someone burned it to the ground. Louie recalled being forced to go to the church as a child to learn the word of God. He didn't like it. While he doesn't hide his..." and again the article is saying that the Chief has contempt for Catholiscism, not that the arsonists had contempt for Catholicism... You're still confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Watch the video from about 3:20 until about 3:30. The CBC report clearly identifies the uptick in fires to contempt for Christian groups. Even if you choose to interpret this solely as applying to the Catholic Church, that's a Christian group. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The quote comes from the article Moxie shared, not the video. That isn't in the cited video section either, 3:19 to 3:33 is "We found 33 churches in Canada which had been fully lost to fire since may 2021, more than double those for the previous two years and only two were ruled accidental." you can't continually misrepresent sources like this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If anyone is misrepresenting sources, it would be you. Both the video and article discuss churches of various denominations being set on fire. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant to type 4:30 above. That is about 1 minute 10 seconds of video I was intending to refer to. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it in there either, please quote where the CBC "clearly identifies the uptick in fires to contempt for Christian groups" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"The surge in church fires began following the discovery of potential unmarked graves on the site of the former Kamloops residential school. The news stirred up long-simmering anger and resentment with the church, particularly within the Indigenous community." 4:07–4:25. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

That does not support the claim that they identify the uptick in fires to contempt for Christian groups. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It attributes the cause of the subject of this article—the increased number of fires at Canadian churches—to "anger and resentment with the church". Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't do that, that would contradict them saying that there was no clear attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

And where do they do that? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The quote I provide contradicts your initial mistaken appraisal of the source, not the source itself. Please accept your error. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How does it contradict it? I am always happy to accept errors, if I am in error I don't see it yet. The provided quote does not attribute the cause of the subject of this article—the increased number of fires at Canadian churches—to "anger and resentment with the church" it attributes the "anger and resentment with the church" to the discovery of graves at a residential school. It doesn't directly attribute the fires in general to anything, that isn't in the reporting. I would also note that "contempt" and "anger and resentment" are not synonyms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

For all your replying, you haven't exactly contradicted my evidence with any of your own. Since you don't seem to have any evidence to the contrary and the sources seem more than clear to a competent editor who has subject matter experience, I think we can move on. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that I have demonstrated that it does not pass WP:V. Are you saying that the rest of us are incompetent or otherwise incapable of contributing to a consensus? Because nobody has supported your position yet and you've edit warred your preferred version into main despite everyone else being well behaved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Since the motives of the arsonists (and not all of the fires were necessarily arson) are unknown, no attribution of the reasons can be made at this time. But it's more likely they are angered at the churches that administered the residential schools rather than Christianity or even any specific faith. The Catholic church has been sued for sexual abuse by priests, but no one refers to the plaintiffs as anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. There's a difference between attacking a church as an institution and attacking its adherents. TFD (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

There's also a ridiculously big difference between illegally setting a church on fire and suing a diocese harboring sexual abusers. Just like after 9/11, when there were Islamophobic attacks on mosques, these are anti-Christian attacks in retaliation for abuses in the residential school system. This is sourced. The mental gymnastics on display to reject this is objectionable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The Catholic Church isn't exactly Al-Qaeda... And none of the sources conclusively state that these are anti-Christian attacks in retaliation for abuses in the residential school system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

HEB, nobody said that first bit. Do you have sources that explicitly say these aren't anti-Christian arsons. Considering the substantial amount of reporting and the widely reported statements by officials in the Indigenous and Canadian governments saying these are targeted attacks on Christians, that should be easy if they actually aren't. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If the comparison is not between the Catholic Church and Al-Qaeda then how does the 9/11 analogy work? You're asking me to prove a negative, that is the opposite of how WP:V works... The burden to demonstrate V is on the one arguing for it, you have so far failed to demonstrate V. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Your statement is a personal attack: "The mental gymnastics on display to reject this is objectionable." I see no point in humoring you by responding to your tendentious arguments and advise other editors not to. We've spent a lot of time on this and no one agrees with you. TFD (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

HEB, if you can't understand the very plain comparison—which is not an analogy—without wondering "who's the terrorists in this", then I can't help you. I've shown you sources, which you then repeatedly ignored—the RS have satisfied V here. TFD, your comments weren't worth responding to in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I never asked whos the terrorist in this, you made the 9/11 comparison and if you're making that comparison then you are comparing the Catholic Church and Al-Qaeda. I'm pointing out that the comparison isn't a good fit (that would mean that attacks against Al-Qaeda were Islamophobic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

No, HEB, I'm not. Perhaps you're unaware of the post-9/11 bigotry directed at mosques. Some people blamed all Muslims, and that was Islamophobia. The point of the comparison is that arsons targeting churches is comparable: Christians administered some of the residential schools, so people blaming all Christians retaliate after the fact by burning churches. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You're arguing that blaming the Catholic Church is anti-Christian, that means that you're arguing that blaming Al-Qaeda is Islamophobic... Or does it not work like that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, Pbritti? We've been over this. There are no sources saying that this is an ongoing issue. The CBC source specifically says "until December 2023". (It also says "May 2021", which is my fault.) If you know of a source that says the fires are continuing, present it. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, @Woodroar: that source is from 10 January 2024. Unless this report only took ten days to put together (highly unlikely) and the CBC could foresee the future, we absolutely can not interpret the end date of their data as the conclusion of the fires. That would be akin to reading someone's grades in the middle of the semester and extrapolating that those are the same grades they got at the end of the school year. Unless you have something that clearly states "this stopped on X date" we leave it open-ended. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There was a fire from recently as October 2024 tied to the other fires by The Christian Post (which, before you even start, is one of the many religiously affiliated sources considered generally reliable by most editors [9], [10]). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. I'm fine with putting "through October 2024" then—unless you have more, later sources? Your analogy about mid-semester grades might apply if there were some known, regular timeframe where churches are burned, but as far as I know that's not the case. That analogy also suggests that we should read into sources to see that we're in the middle of something, but none of the sources say that. As far as we know, the last case was in October 2024. Again, unless you have later sources? Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it work. That would be original research, as we have zero sources that say the October 2024 was the last (or even the the most recent) fire part of this. We can trust reliable sources to either provide us a final end date at some point in the future. Until then, we can wait. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

None of the editors in the linked discussion argued that The Christian Post was generally reliable. Buidhe argues that Religion News Service is generally reliable but does not do the same for the Christian Post. TFD argued for conditional reliability "They seem reliable. But as always it depends on what they are used for." Thats it... No other editors commented. There is no "most editors" there however you want to cut the pie. Please do not misrepresent consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The only other time they've been discussed at length in the last 10 years was overwhelming in favor of its reliability: [11]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That discussion was in no way "overwhelming in favor of its reliability". Not even close. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The only arguments against reliability mustered there were objections to their stated beliefs; their editorial oversight was readily acknowledged and seemed acceptable in the most recent RSN discussion. The only reason we're even discussing this is because of the repeated insertion of a misunderstanding of a source. To suggest in May 2021 that all the possible graves had been discovered because that was when the last source was published would have been false. To do the same here with a source from January 2024 when we don't have a source to corroborate that claim would be misrepresenting the source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"The only arguments against reliability mustered there were objections to their stated beliefs" doesn't seem to be accurate... I'm also seeing questions raised about the rigor of their editorial oversight, their independence, concerns about promotional content, how mainstream their coverage is, how reliable their coverage is, a lack of USEDBYOTHERS, concerns raised that their POV needs to be attributed, a general lack of reasons to consider it reliable, and their general lack of credibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have misrepresented consensus again, the very thing I asked you not to do. The linked discussion is not "overwhelming in favor of its reliability" with only one editor seemingly supporting general reliability and a much larger contingent of editors who disagreed with that assessment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: I've started a discussion about the original research concerns at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Are the Canadian church burnings an ongoing situation? Woodroar (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Removal of See also pages

The edit was hoping to add:

See also

• Church arson
• Heritage conservation in Canada
• "Worst Losses Archive" by National Trust for Canada

I don't think they need much explanation as to their relevance. But what is the objection? AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Church arson was already linked (I added another link to it in the infobox), there is no clear nexus to Heritage conservation in Canada nor to an non-existent article called "Worst Losses Archive". ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair on church arson; agreed.

The National Trust for Canada and Heritage conservation in Canada deal directly with loss of heritage and old buildings. This article is quite literally that in many cases. I didn't link to Worst Losses Archive as it's an external site, but I'm fine to remove it's mention, or link to it if that makes it relevant enough on your end. Kindly, AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of these events being referred to in the context of heritage conservation or by the National Trust for Canada? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought the standard was that they were related. AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes. But there's no indication of a relationship here. Not every church qualifies as a heritage item, and the National Trust for Canada would be a full two steps removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A number of sources do note the heritage status of the destroyed/damaged buildings, both in a formal sense and in a sense of their immense importance to local understandings of community and history. For example in this CBC one[12]. But that only gets us to Heritage conservation in Canada not National Trust for Canada. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying every church is heritage. But many in this case were. The loss of them is directly under the purview of these pages. I'm not seeing a big issue. AnExtraEditor (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated @Horse Eye's Back. I mean for now I'm fine to include just the one then. The National Trust is probably more specific to losses of heritage, as it historically tracked that, but if it's objected to then I suppose. AnExtraEditor (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A good place to start might be making an article for the Worst Losses Archive if its notable, then if incidents from the 2021 Canadian church burnings are covered there a see also link would be due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur with HEB. The CBC source (good pull there, HEB) is sufficient for that one see also, but the prerequisites listed above would have to be fulfilled to include the "Worst Losses" list. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

sounds good AnExtraEditor (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)