Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings

the United States is not in Canada
The section specifically says there are ties to increased vandalism in Portland. Npthing about those fires is Canadian. If you want to write about them start another article or rename this one Elinruby (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per COMMONNAME, the relatively few fires in the US that were tied to the Canadian fires can easily fall under this broader heading. There is no basis for removing that information (which reliable sources tied to the Canadian incidents), and continued coverage since 2021 has focused largely on the Canadian incidents. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * post your evidence Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the Catholic News Agency is an RS, and the National Catholic Reporter (which follows standard editorial practices and is wholly independent from the church) also covered the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anybody say they are RS besides you? Elinruby (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anybody but you say that there is any link at all between the fire in Portland and what happened in Kamloops? Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence at all that anyone in Portland can find Kamloops on a map even? Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's with the BATTLEGROUND? Please stick to the content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are serious questions about content. I would like an answer to them. YOU wanted to discuss. Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the most recent discussion at RSN, there are serious concerns about the Catholic News Agency. I also generally wouldn't trust anything from a .org unless there's broad support for it at RSN. If we're to report that vandalism of U.S. churches is connected to vandalism of Canadian churches, I think we'll need reliable, secondary, independent sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're referencing a discussion that only came to a conclusion about a different subsidiary of the same organization. CNA follows editorial standards, Catholic Culture did not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion touched on CNA as well. Their About page reads like an advocacy organization, which makes sense as they're "A service of EWTN News". As I mentioned above, I would like to see independent and unquestionably reliable sources make this connection. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Independence is not a requirement for a source to be reliable. In fact, very few if any sources are independent. The Washington Post for example endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S, presidential election. Do you think they should be removed from the list of rs sources? TFD (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, TFD, but that sounds like a rather bad faith reading of my comments. We're talking about a religious advocacy organization reporting on controversial events involving their religion. They're not the Post. I mean, if the WaPo were the official paper of the Democratic Party and reporting on controversial issues related to Biden, then yes, I'd argue that we wait for WP:INDEPENDENT sources to cite. Woodroar (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNA is a reliable source for reporting factual statements and is regularly referenced by other sources, such as the NYT. Additionally, the sourced statement from CNA here is plain and incontestable: an act of vandalism, almost certainly done in the context of the residential school gravesites, occurred. We regularly cite Mother Jones and similarly partisan sources for simple factual statements and analysis. If CNA claimed that a particular organization was responsible for the vandalism (or that this was a false flag or any number of other options) and we added that claim to the article, that would be undue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNA isn't a reliable source in this context. CNA also doesn't say "almost certainly done in the context of the residential school gravesites" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're saying that CNA's reporting is unreliable here, but how so? They're reliable enough for the NYT and other premier RSs to reference. They furnish a photo of the vandalism that includes the number that the CNA article then, citing another RS report, identifies it as the number of graves discovered at a residential school site. I'm afraid your contention doesn't hold water. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I;m saying that the CNA doesn't say "almost certainly done in the context of the residential school gravesites" and is likely too strongly biased in this context to meet our reliability standards (no actual error in the article needs to be pointed out BTW). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're placing quotation marks around a phrase I never said was verbatim in the source; that's a red herring to obscure that the CNA article does explicitly tie the Denver and Canadian events. Furthermore, you can't seem to articulate how bias would come into play here. Are you saying that CNA—which, again, isn't too biased for other RSs—is too biased to accurately read a number painted on a church and note that they are the same numbers as from a contemporaneous report on residential school gravesites? I'm afraid that's not a winning argument. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It links them, but it doesn't say that it almost certainly was done in the context the residential school gravesites as far as I can see. Whether or not a bias impacts a source's usefulness is based on context, in this context using Catholic sources appears inadvisable... Especially when its to say something which non-Catholic sources do not. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your position that a reliable source specializing in Catholic news covering Catholic events in a neutral way should be removed on sectarian grounds remains unconvincing. The attributed statement should stay put. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be a strawman, not my position. Bottom line: The sources aren't what we would need and they don't actually appear to say what they are purported to say... Which is an issue even if the sources are of the highest quality. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I could not find a retraction or editorial policy at 'National Catholic Reporter Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have restored this content. The reality is that there were at least two incidents of vandalism against Catholic churches in the US elicited coverage in reliable sources. These two incidents were tied to the Canadian church fires and the resurgence of interest in the Indigenous gravesites. The removal of other material, like the non-RS publications, are good things. But these are documented incidents of spillover, so they merit inclusion. Discussion elsewhere seems to agree. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why is this being re-added?
 * Canada is not the United States, and the topic is "2021 Canadian church burnings" not "2021 North American church burnings". Similarly, stating there is a "connection" would be relevant if the article were "2021 responses to the discovery of unmarked gravesites at former residential schools" and not "2021 Canadian church burnings". I will be removing these as they are irrelevant to the topic, which is again, 2021 Canadian church burnings. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article's scope has, for three years, been the spate of destructive actions targeting Christian churches following the (re)discovery of Indigenous graves. The name of the article does not change that. There's good reason for that scope: Indigenous North American people, the traumas of colonialism, and the Catholic Church are all not limited by national borders. As such, while most incidents were arsons in Canada, a few well-attested events outside of Canada are also relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article's scope has, for three years, been the spate of destructive actions targeting Christian churches following the (re)discovery of Indigenous graves.
 * The article is titled "2021 Canadian church burnings", and as one would guess, it is about church burnings in Canada in 2021. It is not an article about "churches being burned across North America for X reason". You are welcome to create a new article on that subject if you feel it is appropriate.
 * There's good reason for that scope: Indigenous North American people, the traumas of colonialism, and the Catholic Church are all not limited by national borders.
 * Then by all means, make an article which does not specifically mention national borders.
 * As such, while most incidents were arsons in Canada, a few well-attested events outside of Canada are also relevant
 * As the article is "2021 Canadian church burnings" then activities taking place outside of Canada are not. More importantly, we can use the very basic wikipedia guideline of asking "does this improve the article?" To which the answer is most certainly not. An act of vandalism 1,500km in another country- especially when the linked material states that the "motive is unclear" and several others are listed as the result of vandalism tied to *covid 19*.
 * If there were some real indication of a significant level of say... copycat crimes, or crimes committed in "solidarity" then that might warrant inclusion. Some "anti-colonial" vandalism in another country does not. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly suggested new names. Perhaps a consensus solution could be found through a move discussion? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to a move discussion. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need something that establishes the scope as pertaining to 2021 incidents of vandalism (not necessarily arson, but we could specify that) at churches in response to the Indigenous gravesites. If anyone has a name that they think fulfills that or wants to alter those parameters, I'm game to hear input. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have noticed but not yet addressed the inclusion of red handprints in this list. I would like to see some evidence that this is in fact notable, or that there is a tie between any given fire and the graves in Kamloops. I think that is SYNTH. Cited synth but nonetheless synth. Otherwise we might as well title the article "unsupported speculation about 2021 fires in Canada" Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which event are you discussing? ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * according to my gadget, you wrote this article Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote major portions of it, but which content does this comment pertain to? I'm not seeing reference to red handprints in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the widespread RS coverage at the time most churches burned reported the fires in connection to the (re)discovery of graves (eg NYT, 2021) and the recent independent investigation by the CBC, I don't believe SYNTH is at play. I would appreciate clarification on your position regarding an important element of this article: do you believe that there were a series of fires and defacing at churches in North America during 2021 that occurred in response to renewed interest in the Indigenous school gravesites? ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But none of them actually present the stuff in the US in this context unless I'm missing something... That would be SYNTH. I would also note that this page is about church burnings in Canada... Not defacements anywhere or church burnings in any other country. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the cited CNA article about the Denver vandalism, which clearly states that "The incident follows several weeks of Catholic churches in Canada being vandalized or discovered on fire", further directly relating that incident to the other acts of arson and vandalism in Canada. Not sure how you are claiming SYNTH when it's explicitly in the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't directly relating that incident to the other acts of arson and vandalism in Canada, saying that it followed something else is not the same as saying that its part of something else. That is clearly and unambiguously SYNTH. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An article on an act of vandalism that spend more than of its words noting the relationship between that act of vandalism and similar acts of vandalism in Canada is indeed drawing a connection. It explicitly ties the numbers painted on the church to a reported number of gravesites in Canada and spends more than half the article articulating how the event in Denver was similar to other Canadian events. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is drawing an indirect connection. Similar is not due here. CNA is also not a terribly good source in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion should be whether connections have been made in rs. This article should report opinions, not evaluate them. Some editors seem to be confusing the presentations of opinions and analysis reported in reliable sources with original research by editors. TFD (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There simply is no RS coverage of any grand conspiracy to attack the faithful however. And I sincerely doubt whether anyone in Portland or Denver could find Kamloops on a map. This is a collection of police-blotter items that were strung together by a deprecated source into a "pattern" and which Pbritti wishes to preserve because he does not understand the problem with recentism. Elinruby (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's good: this article isn't about some "grand conspiracy". It's about a trend observed in reliable sources that has remained acknowledged into 2024. For over a month, you have been trying to delegitimize this article at noticeboards and haven't succeeded. You are encouraged to either try another AfD (you were't able to comment in time for the last one before it was closed, so this seems a fair option) or to move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok? maybe we are getting somewhere now. What exactly is this article about, then? See, we kind of need to know that before we can have any discussion of due. Or reliability. Elinruby (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Factoids related to True North conspiracy theory? And now you're shoe-horning in water-soluble red paint at a church in Denver. Because.....? That is so clearly a fire, and a Canadian fire at that? I mean ok, they had to wash it off. Not polite. But it seems like these thousands of dead children are being drowned out by itty-bitty little news items like "city x put its statue of John A. in storage." And now red paint in Denver. Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and read the article and the sources involved. Each of them is reliably sourced and referenced to something that contextualizes that event in the trend of other acts of arson and vandalism that are suspected to have occurred for similar reasons. This has nothing to do with True North. You appear to want to delete this article; it's better to do so procedurally rather than incrementally trying to break it apart. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I want the articles in the topic area to be well-sourced and to reflect their sources. I am not going to attempt to diagnose what you are doing, or why. It just doesn't seem to be talking us to the articles in the topic area being well-sourced and reflecting their sources. Next. You were going to explain to me what the topic of the article is. Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reply is a bit confusing, but I think you're again asking me about the scope of this article. I've answered that for you a couple times (here's me on 28 June) and it's been addressed by a handful of other editors at NOR/N and the AfD. The article covers events of vandalism or arson that sources relate back to the upward trend of such events in the aftermath of gravesite announcements in Canada. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear none of the sources currenrtly used in that section (Catholic News Agency, Oregon Catholic Press, or National Catholic Reporter) is a reliable source in this context, all are questionable because all three have a conflict of interest... Per WP:V "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." so none of it is reliably sourced and if you want to try and make that claim you will need to find sources which actually are reliable in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're questioning those sources, but you haven't expressed how their bias may have impacted their reporting accuracy. Sectarian sources are more than adequate for sourcing simple statements; a decent example of this can be found on a more tragic scale at the article for Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. If you identified how bias may impair the reporting of this information, then you could have had an argument. Instead, you claimed that this was SYNTH despite the sources flatly contradicting this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparent conflict of interest... Not bias and thse are not simple statements. Do you disagree that these sources have an apparent conflict of interest in this context? You also do not appear to have convinced anyone of your argument that its not SYNTH, you've actually refused to show where the sources say what you contend they say... The ball is in your court, if it’s not SYNTH then you should be able to demonstrate that. But it is SYNTH... and beyond that the sources are all questionable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNA nor National Catholic Reporter would not have conflicts of interest reporting on the events of a Denver parish, as they are independently owned (that would be like arguing that the Edmonton Journal has a conflict of interest on reporting events in Edmonton). Neither outlet is devoted to evangelization and instead operate as subject-matter news agencies, the same way the exceptional and also-cited Indian Country Today does. OCP is a bit of a different story, as it was previously contracted by the Archdiocese of Portland to perform reporting within its jurisdiction and would be subject to the same COI concerns one might have with WashPos coverage of Bezos, but it's used to further color an event that received coverage elsewhere. As to the question of SYNTH, you should look at the sources and see that these events are reported in the context of the Canadian fires and vandalism. Since NOR/N looked at this and nobody seemed especially convinced that there was any SYNTH following the AfD, I'd say that ship sailed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * EWTN is specifically devoted to evangelization, that is their stated primary purpose and I think Mother Angelica would roll over in her grave if they ever dropped it. The apparent conlict of interest isn't geographic, it comes from sources which identify as Catholic reporting on alleged attacks against Catholicism. I also think you're confusing the sources, National Catholic Reporter is being used for the Portland material not the Denver material. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was thinking of this National Catholic Register (NCR on the brain) modified version of CNA's reporting on Denver that isn't cited in the article but was appearing in a related search. You have yet to prove that CNA is an evangelizing arm of EWTN; separate, reliable news organizations are frequently owned by larger entities. Also, Catholics are more than able to neutrally report on events related to other Catholics. Your argument could easily be applied to Indian Country Today, which describes the organization that owns it with "IndiJ Public Media honors our ancestors and future generations through stories that make Indigenous peoples come alive". Of course, ICT is an outstanding and respected outlet, but you can see how your logic doesn't actually serve to determine reliability or COI. Now, if you believe Catholics are uniquely unable to demonstrate reliability in reporting on topics related to their identity, maybe you could argue CNA has a COI, but I don't see the case for that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that CNA is an evangelizing arm of EWTN, I said that EWTN is specifially devoted to evangelization... As Mother Angelica intended. I'm not talking about Catholics or individual identify, I'm only talking about organizations and their missions. I would have no problem with a catholic writing for the NYT in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that CNA is owned by an evangelizing organization but that it's not necessarily an evangelizing arm EWTN. In that case, what reasoning do you have that CNA has a COI that would preclude its use here that wouldn't rule out Indian Country Today? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What involved organization does ICT have a COI with? The Catholic Church? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're saying CNA has a COI with the entire Catholic Church and all topics related to Catholicism? In that case, an organization like ICT would have a COI will Indigenous issues. Again, your logic is inconsistent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Catholic =/= Indigenous, those are not equivilent concepts. One is an organization and one is any people or peoples who inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that some identity-based outlets can reliably and independently report on their identity but other identities can not? If so, we're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not about reporting on their identities, the problem is reporting on an organization which they have a COI with. EWTN, NCR, and OCP all have an apparent conflict of interest with the Catholic Church. In terms of organizations ICT appears to have a conflict of interest when it comes to the National Congress of American Indians. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would mean you believe that CNA and both NCRs are, at some level, owned or operated by the Catholic Church; that's false. Your logic identifies that CNA would have a COI reporting on EWTN. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would not... And only one of the NCRs... I perpetually get them confused but National Catholic Register should be good here (again, as long as we can write text which actually passes V). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your logic is inconsistent: you're not saying CNA is charged with evangelization, nor saying it's owned by the Catholic Church, but saying that it has a conflict of interest that precludes it from reporting on Catholic matters for identity reasons. However, other identity-based organizations are not subject to this same standard. Unless there's an exceptional argument hidden in the ellipsis that can overturn the previous discussion at NOR/N, I think we can safely lay this to rest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you could stop misrepresenting my points and creating strawmen that would be great... Given that you have failed to get consenus for your inclusion lay this to rest means removing it from the article. I don't think thats what you want or mean. There is no consensus from NOR/N which applies here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain how CNA, an organization not owned or operated by the Catholic Church, is thus precluded from referencing Catholic affairs while ICT would not be precluded from referencing Indigenous affairs. Considering multiple editors reverted your blanking—which you initially premised on a SYNTH claim that failed at AfD and NOR/N—the onus is on you to prove that CNA has too much of a COI to reference that "1323+" wasn't just a random number graffitied on a church. You have yet to secure a consensus that overturns the precedents. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What precedents? There is no consensus for inclusion here or anywhere else. By multiple editors do you mean yourself and one other editor (who didn't actually take a position, e.g. "I take no position on the merits.")? WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the SYNTH claim has been previously addressed. The other editor not only reverted you, but also engaged you on your talk page, where you flaunted your initial unwillingness to engage in BRD; perhaps this had the effect of cooling their willingness to discuss matters further. How many discussions have to occur on the same topic before you concede? ONUS has been established. You still have not actually explained how CNA, an organization not owned or operated by the Catholic Church, is thus precluded from referencing Catholic affairs while ICT would not be precluded from referencing Indigenous affairs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For ONUS to be established there needs to be an explicit consensus to include the disputed content, please point to that consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

List of fires in Canada in June 2021
I still question the entire premise here, but ok, we can have a list of fire if we must, but we really need to demonstrate notability in that case. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Due you mean notability in regards to WP:N or in regards to encyclopedic relevancy? If the latter, I would encourage you to suggest a minimum standard. I think the current standard—an RS verifying that a fire occurred and that it was connected to the broader series of fires—is suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't meet that in most of these cases. it's a list of random fires with zero followup as to outcome, interspersed with quotes saying that people are mad. Oh and let's not forget the schools getting renamed. What do they have to do with anything? Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources report that these fires may be a reaction to deaths at the residential schools. Therefore any fire can be included if a possible connection is reported in reliable sources. We of course may never know how many if any of the fires are related unless culprits are found. Policy and guidelines however say they should be mentioned. I don't understand your complaint. Notability is about whether articles should exist, not what their content should be. TFD (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources report that some people say they could understand if they were. One of these things is not like the other. Three years out with no convictions except for a non-indigenous woman who was mad at her boyfriend. Seriously? Elinruby (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Elinruby, reliable sources have consistently associated these fires as a collective series of events for three years. They have also almost universally drawn a tie between the residential school gravesites and the fires. Are you saying that you deny that you reject the consensus of reliable sources? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the article reflects anything in reliable sources but three-year-old-speculation? Elinruby (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering that every news story on this between 2021 and 2024 has identified a link between the gravesites and the fires, no. Furthermore, the Indigenous people and government who have commented on the fires in these sources all agree that there is a connection. At this point, it sounds like you're denying criminal acts in the face of all evidence. Why? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And there have been how many of those exactly? With substantive mention? Less than ten is my estimate, with nine of them in 2021. It was a juicy rumor that didn't pan out. Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources
We are wasting a lot of time on arguments about lesser known sources when the same information is available in well-known ones. See for example an article from the CBC: "CBC investigation finds steep rise in church fires since reports of potential graves at residential schools....A researcher and some community leaders suggest Canada's colonial history and recent discoveries of potential burial sites at former residential schools may have lit the fuse."

No rs claim that these fires were set in response to the mass graves or who is behind them. Two fires were found to be accidental. OTOH, there are no claims in rs that there is no connection.

This should be straightforward: report what rs say.

~ TFD (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * thank you. There has also been an aquittal, but that just got reverted. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What more well known sources do we have which support the information about the US and support it being due here? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of the sources used reported claims of a connection between fires in Portland and the discovery of mass graves. It would therefore be pointless to look for better known sources that reported such claims. TFD (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate: the sources we have in the article explicitly tie the painting of red handprints (a common symbol in protests opposing violence against Indigenous persons) and other vandalism in Portland to the gravesites: . ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing them do so explicitly, you could argue they do it implicitly but thats not the same thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again:
 * In Canada, dozens of churches have been torched or vandalized this summer following the discovery of more than 1,000 unmarked graves at former residential schools for Indigenous children. Most of the schools were operated by the Catholic Church.


 * On Canada Day, July 1, when many Canadians opted to replace celebrations with large vigils, one of the vandalism cases in Portland occurred amid an evening protest in the city.


 * An estimated 200 people gathered to watch a movie, hear speeches and walk through the neighborhood that includes St. Francis at St. Francis of Assisi — a parish that long has ministered to area homeless through its dining hall.
 * The poster advertising the event described it as a "silent march and vigil to honor the Indigenous children and survivors of the U.S. and Canadian residential/boarding schools."
 * At the church, protesters stopped and children were encouraged to dip their hands in red paint and place them on the doors, columns and steps.
 * The source contextualizes the events in Portland with the vandalism and arsons in Canada, then notes that the vandalism occurred during a protest about the gravesites in Canada. Are you saying you didn't see this as explicitly tying the two together? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems misleading given that the comment is preceeded by "Throughout the United States this year, there's been increased vandalism, much of it protesting colonialism and white supremacy. Churches and religious statues have been among the targets. In Portland, city officials reported complaints about graffiti at various locations were up nearly 400% since the pandemic began in March 2020." its not saying that they're part of the same thing... This is not a page for responses to the Canadian Indian residential school gravesites scandal... This is a page for the 2021 Canadian church burnings and the given source does not explicitly link the two... The strongest they get is "one of the vandalism cases in Portland occurred amid an evening protest in the city." and amid is not explicitly linking. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red paint again. This article has some serious DUE WEIGHT problems. Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The key for me is that none of the actual arson attempts or fires are linked to the Canadian cases, even implicitly. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is about the church fires in Canada not about protests against the Catholic church over the alleged discovery of the mass graves.
 * I would suggest as well that vandalism be removed from the lead, because the main sources, such as the CBC article I mentioned, are about the fires. Other reactions to the mass graves, such as statements by the PM and the Pope are also outside the scope of the article.
 * Since the articles about Portland do not explicitly connect the protests with the fires, the protests do not belong in the article. "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." TFD (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're significantly altering the scope of the article from what it's been for two and a half years. If there's consensus to fundamentally alter the scope here (with TFD's input, there appears to be), then we should remove the US component and alter the passage on the WSJs coverage in the speculation section. Trudeau's comments certainly have relevance in the context of the fires, since he was responding to the fires themselves in his statements (though his challenge to the pope can feasibly be removed). The pope isn't quoted here, as far as I can tell. Outside of that, I don't see any other portions that require changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, also the lead, of course. I'll get on that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good to me. Thank you Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. You got a consensus that agree with you, so more than glad to implement it. Good fix in the infobox. Do you mind rereading the second paragraph in the speculation section to triple check it? I think there's a flow issue but I can't spot it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot about vandalism, other than at the Portland church.
 * I meant that commentary by the PM and Pope about the mass graves doesn't belong unless of course they were talking about the fires. My main point was that the scope should be limited to things directly related to the church fires.
 * I would point out that church arson is a major problem in the U.S., so there is little or no reason to automatically connect a fire in Portland with Canada. TFD (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * NPR and the WSJ both emphasized coverage of vandalism in the context of the fires, particularly relating them investigators linking the same angst that caused the specifically anti-residential school vandalism (identified through less-than-unambiguous graffiti) to the uptick of fires. The Portland incidents occurred in the context of other acts of vandalism immediately tied to the events in Canada. Fundamentally, their removal from the article is an arbitrary decision to restrict the article's scope, but most of Wikipedia is arbitrary decisions that consensuses have approved. Given that the most relevant things—the major uptick in Canadian church arsons in 2021, the investigations, and the speculated motives—are covered, I think we have a decent article here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you provided references to the WSJ and NPR articles. Has anyone actually claimed that the people who defaced the Portland Church with hand prints were responsible for burning down churches?  TFD (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to keep litigating this. The NPR and WSJ pieces are referenced in the article if you're inclined to review them to learn more about why RSs also mentioned the vandalism. (If you have trouble viewing the latter piece, I have a subscription and can email you a PDF copy.) Having spent a month and a half discussing this, the compromise you've forwarded is good enough and much appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Even when articles are listed in articles, it's helpful if they are identified because there could be more than one article and with edits, articles can be removed.
 * The vandalism was directed toward statues of imperial figures, not churches, the exception being the Portland church.
 * I think the vandalism is off topic. It should be mentioned in the parent article about finding the alleged mass graves as one of many reactions. Other than that, and both being illegal, I don't think anyone has drawn a connection between the two types of actions. TFD (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the WSJ article: In addition to the fires, a series of churches were damaged overnight on June 30 in the province of Alberta’s largest city, Calgary, by vandals who smeared red and orange paint over their facades and scrawled the numbers "215" and "751" on them, references to the numbers of graves found at two separate school sites. Given the new refined scope of this article, I agree that this probably fits more for the parent article (alongside a handful of other references) to source a short statement like "There were also instances of vandalism." However, the parent article is unstable at present, so I'm not going to place it there. Up to you if you want to, but it's getting shuffled a lot right now to undo some denialist stuff and I don't want to add further to the quagmire. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Briefly mentioning the vandalism is fine. TFD (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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)
 * 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:  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)