Talk:Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond

Assessment
I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the topic, and of low importance, as I do not feel than many people would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade Assessment
I have changed it to Start rather than stub. It needs more but it is a start on this woman who, at least here in BC, is a very significant person who I expect we will hear more and more about. -- KenWalker | Talk 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Turpel-Lafond_mugshot.jpg may be deleted
I have tagged File:Turpel-Lafond_mugshot.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  07:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's Who in Canada not a reliable source?
The birth date given in Who's Who in Canada, cited in the CBC article, was deleted by, as not coming from a reliable source. Is Who's Who in Canada not a reliable source? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the birth date was listed in the infobox and in the first sentence. Neither location had a reference. You can certainly add it back in with a reference on the same sentence or at least the same paragraph where the birth date is stated. MB 15:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Shall do when I have time. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Verbal v. oral
From the source: "The claim states that the government broke a verbal agreement to provide Turpel-Lafond with 18 months worth of pension credits for each year of service." Geordie (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WRT "Not an improvement, either is correct, but verbal is the better choice imo"

My Edit here on this CBC Source
Dear Sir or Madam or Oncamera,

I made a quick and maybe clumsy edit on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who also made false indigenous claims today. Please feel free to correct it if you wish. This is breaking news as the Order of Canada is one of Canada's highest awards and she will surrender the title on Saturday. This is another Pretendian issue. Who knew that there were so many Pretendians. I always though Sacheen Littlefeather was Indian and not Hispanic. I said she made "incorrect" claims but in fact but they are misleading or false claims. Best from Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed
I can see there have been a lot of good faith edits regarding the indigenous ancestry and other issues about Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, but this article does all seem overly detailed to me. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, so needs to be resonably concise. I'll try and cut it down a bit. Seaweed (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job, Seaweed. This is a vast improvement. Chetsford (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you for doing that, Seaweed. I think that with your edits, we could take down the “overly detailed” hat note. The reason is that the issue of Pretendians is a major matter of debate in Canada, in Indigenous circles and more generally. The detail is necessary to show what happened in this case, over the course of 30 years. The cumulative effect of all these events is important, leading to an Indigenous woman senator calling for revocations of awards, an Indigenous woman academic specialist in identity weighing in, and Turpel-Lafond’s decision to surrender her Order of Canada. Those are major culminations, which I don’t think would have happened without the extensive investigation carried out by the CBC. The details are necessary for the overall context.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the detail is also necessary because of Wikipedia’s policies on BLP: the article is repeating serious allegations, and the response to those allegations, by Turpel-Lafond, and by other individuals and organisations. In that context, I think we should err on the side of more detail, not less, backed up by lots of reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "reactions to ancestry" section could be shortened to a paragraph summarizing all the reactions (example, below)? I'm not sure it's necessary to have a blow-by-blow account of what every person who weighed in said. Also, maybe the content should be moved to the "Ancestry" section instead of a standalone section which has an air of WP:NOCRIT. Anyway, just an idea. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In 2022, after allegations emerged that Turpel-Lafond had falsely claimed Indigenous ancestry, she received support from some Indigenous groups and individuals — including Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs — but was criticized by others, such as the Indigenous Women's Collective and Aly Bear, vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.
 * In 2022, after allegations emerged that Turpel-Lafond had falsely claimed Indigenous ancestry, she received support from some Indigenous groups and individuals — including Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs — but was criticized by others, such as the Indigenous Women's Collective and Aly Bear, vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.


 * One other suggestion, if anyone things it appropriate. This article has a bit of a criminal trial vibe in that we present Turpel-Lafond's assertion followed by a list of her evidence, and then the CBC assertion followed by a list of their evidence. Could we just say "she says this, it's been disputed by X who says that" and then add a notes section in which we move the evidence list to that's now in the body of the article? Again, just an idea. Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Chetsford, thanks for your comments. I contributed a fair bit to this article when the story broke a year ago, and I appreciate having a fresh set of eyes on it.  My concern, though, is that by trying to condense it, the significance of the issues raised by the article gets downplayed.  For example, and just for discussion, why do you suggest excluding Senator Dyck, and her significant comment, calling out the universities?  By referring to the Indigenous Women's Collective, but not referring to the first female First Nations Senator, who is a major force in the Collective, would we not be undercutting the significance?  And why exclude the reference to Professor Blackstock, who is a First Nations scholar on family matters?  This issue is one of major importance within the Indigenous community, as I understand it, and when the issue became public a year ago, it attracted considerable attention. I just have a concern that by trying to condense the article, the significance of the issue for Indigenous peoples will not be adequately reported?
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about moving the "evidence list" from the body of the article to notes. What list are you referring to? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One other comment: I take your point about the vibe of the article, but I think that's inevitable in that there does not appear to be any mechanism to resolve the issues.  It's not like it's going to court or anything.  In that context, I think there is value in putting both sides of the factual allegations into the article and letting the reader form their own conclusions, based on the material presented.
 * As said, I contributed a fair bit, but I'm not trying to assert ownership or resist change if warranted; just trying to explain how the article evolved to its current content. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. That all makes sense to me. Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Intricate detail" hatnote
Following up on the earlier discussion, I've removed the "Intricate detail" hatnote, for a couple of reasons. First, I disagree with the suggestion that this topic only is of interest to a "particular audience". It is clearly of interest to Indigenous people in Canada, which is a large group and should not be dismissed as a "particular audience". The article also demonstrates that it is of interest to academics and universities in Canada. As well, the fact that funding agencies established by the federal government of Canada are reviewing issues that arose in part in this case indicates that this is of interest to the federal government. More generally, it raises issues of interest to Canadians who are concerned with truth and reconciliation, as set out in the calls for action by the federal Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Second, this issue can only be understood by a detailed review. As stated earlier, I think Wikipedia has to be careful to ensure all aspects of the issue are covered, and let the reader draw their own conclusions, from the material in the article, and the detailed citations. Third, given the seriousness of the issue, I think that WP:BLP requires a full review in the article, to present as balanced an account as possible. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)