Talk:Maplewashing

Where was this copied from?

@Telsho: where did you copy the first edit from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I don't think this is a copy I think this was his original work. But regardless of where the work came from, it seems like it's a FORK (Wikipedia:Content forking) article. The vast majority of the references don't actually use the term and when I google the term only a few articles on this phenomenon comes up. As a place to start, I think we need to lay the first groundrule that if the reference doesn't actually use this "maplewashing" term then it shouldn't be used in the article at all. otherwise, it's going to be a slanted, biased article with no actual connection the topic at hand. Festerhauer (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we delete this page? I took out all the things in the article that made no mention of the term maplewashing and as I noted, all we are left with are some bare bones references which do. Not sure if it warrants a full, independent page for this. Festerhauer (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC) sock

Look at the retrieval dates on the sources from the original edit, theres like a half decade of time there... So large parts of it had to have been copied from somewhere else on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: @Festerhauer: This was copied from Racism in North America#Canada, so Telsho's claim below that it wasn't a WP:CFORK is a lie. There's definitely a place for an expanded article about systemic racism in Canada, but this is probably a bait page of some sort. He has no prior involvement in Canadian articles and there is nothing in the copied passages that explains how these nationally known incidents were whitewashed, when he had perfectly good, non-WP:OR examples of "maplewashing" like Lynn Beyak to choose from instead. —{Canucklehead} 05:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing their history you appear to be right, it does appear as if they could be targeting you in particular as retribution for critiquing their behavior. I’ve reverted Telsho’s revert as it restored all of the stolen text, next time I hope they can scrape together a little honesty. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

@Festerhauer: could you explain your reasoning for completely blanking without proper explanation? If there's things that needs to be addressed, mention about it here first and gain consensus (e.g. Cansplaining) Also, this wasn't a WP:CFORK, but organizing a similar topic area towards one article which doesn't directly conflict each other as the term is mostly used in regards to indigenous rights or other minorities in Canada. The term "Maplewashing" is supported by secondary sources. Such similarities can be found in Blackwashing, Greenwashing, Pinkwashing (LGBT) and Sportswashing, and as you can see it doesn't have to directly have sources which explicitly mentions the term as it's a general idea about the topic at hand. That's why this article exists, because it all comes down into the same general subject. Thanks. Telsho (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Festerhauer: I've restored it partially, which were the complete original works. I do agree in leaving out the "Examples" sections for now until they are properly rewritten. Telsho (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Next time you need to give credit to everyone whose content you steal, copying within wikipedia is only OK if you do it right and you didn’t. Sources in general do need to explicitly mention the topic of the page they’re being used on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia so that next time you won’t have any licensing issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also just so we’re clear its a violation of Twinkle’s acceptable use policy to use it for edits such as [1]. Please don’t abuse twinkle again or you could be banned from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Cansplaining

Should Cansplaining be added or does it warrant a separate article? I do think they are in the same general topic area however, and so it might seem redundant to separate those two. Telsho (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't warrant a separate article.James Hyett (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure it warrants its own article but its only loosely relate to the topic at hand here so I don’t actually see any argument for including it here. I see exactly zero redundancy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave it here than not have it at all: both are cases of representing Canada in a biased and over-flattering way, and particularly in instances of Cansplaining that have to do with racial equity, the topics are nearly synonymous. Of course, a cursory google of the term only reveals two sources, so it may well simply not be WP:NOTABLE enough. James Hyett (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've come across similar terms used on media publications about such topics before, but it seems like the authors rarely specifically mention the term save for The Washington Post, and so it probably might not fit. Obviously, it would be difficult to get such sources from Canadian news outlets. Telsho (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah my argument for not warranting its own article is based purely on notability, a better place for it might be as a subsection of mansplaining. Cansplaining seems to cover a whole spectrum from internet policy to international relations to indigenous welfare, there is definitely some overlap but I don't see the concepts as similar enough to share a page and I see no redundant coverage, there aren’t any sources which I can find which discuss both Cansplaining and Maplewashing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Despite its similarities to "Explaining", Cansplaining and Mansplaining are unrelated and talks about something entirely different, while Maplewashing is more appropriate. Telsho (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Far from being unrelated Cansplaining is *directly derived* from Mansplaining, or at least thats what the sources we have say. Not a single source we currently have links Cansplaining with Maplewashing. Do you disagree with the sources or have additional ones you wish to add? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

While the meaning of the term Cansplaining (broadly, an outsider using a Canada-shaped strawman) is not related to mansplaining (a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending manner), etymologically the terms are related, and I'd support including Cansplaining under a "related terms" section of the Mansplaining article. Horse Eye's Back is right that there is no source as of yet that explicitly links that term with Maplewashing, so the claim that it's a "similar term" is verging on WP:OR. James Hyett (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy-pasting

@Telsho: you stole that last bit [2] from redwashing without attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a word for word, and I had originally intended to merge those two since they are both neologisms anyway. Some might call it indigenous redwashing, others maplewashing. I don't think they are much different, though maplewashing obviously only focuses on Canada while the other could also mention about other countries. Telsho (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It was so close you really needed to give attribution, again please review WP:copying within wikipedia. The sources also do have to at least tangentially mention maplewashing, they dont. Nor do any of them say that “maple washing” and "indigenous redwashing” are equivalent, nor would they be as maplewashing includes offenses against black, hispanic, and asian Canadians not just indigenous Canadians. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential Neutrality (NPOV) issue

The article takes on a somewhat politicized tone coming across like similarly disputed articles such as White defensiveness which appear to correspond to a particular political movement as opposed to being objectionable in nature. Furthermore the use of the term "maplewashing" comes across as sounding academic in nature (i.e. like White Privilege) however the term doesn't seem to emerge from objectionable sources and rather from a sole author(a man by the name of Luke Savage) as well as from an art exhibition. This is further evident with the term "cansplaning" which based upon research and sources provided emerges from a Washington post-oped (in the context being used in the article) rather from an academic or objectionable source. This section further appears to drift off from the original purpose (highlighting racism in Canada and its coverage) and instead seems to focus on an unrelated issue of the presentation of Canada's economic situation in media, hence giving a further politicized tone. If possible better terminology may be in order, alternatively adding a criticism section to the term would make the article more neutral. KNorth192 (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cansplaining indeed. I mean you're more than welcome to add a criticism section defending Canada for "balance", and then we could go from there. Slapping a tag seems like a lazy solution. Telsho (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The criticism section would be for the terms used, not to "defend Canada", yet either way its difficult as there really isn't much of an objectionable origin for the terms used and rather seem to originate from a few non-academic as well as opinion peaces, hence why I noted finding alternative/better terminology would be useful. Applying the tag is merely standard procedure, it is more prudent than moving for immediately deletion of the article and rather takes a lens to improve upon it. KNorth192 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@KNorth192: do you mean "objective" (rather than "objectionable")? Anyhow, there are no sources that provide criticism of the topic, so any criticism section would be WP:OR. I would suggest that a more productive edit would have been trying to hedge some of the perceived neutrality issues in this rather short article rather than just slapping a tag on, but it's easy enough for me to do right now. James Hyett (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of this page?

it seems the general consensus from the multiple discussions above is that most of the editor's here don't think this page is necessary. As I said in one of my prior messages, there isn't enough references to warrants the creation of a full, independent page for topic. If the information for this maplewashing article was indeed copied and pasted from the "racism in north america" article as another user pointed out, then I do not see why it cannot be put back into that article. What does everybody here think about deleting this page? Festerhauer (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC) @Canucklehead:, @Telsho:, @KNorth192:, @James Hyett: kindly refer to the proposal and provide your answer. Festerhauer (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC) sock

It would appear to barely meet the WP:GNG requirements, technically we should keep it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute this. There has not been significant coverage of this maplewashing phenomenon, and a lot of the information out on the web is not independent either as it was produced by the person who created this tterm. Festerhauer (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Who created the term? Our current page doesn’t say. I see just enough significant coverage of Maplewashing/Maple Washing to make it notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I also see non-significant use by Slate "These cracks in Canada’s reputation for tolerance and multiculturism have always been present, but they are becoming harder to cover up with national myths about Canadian niceness and decency, which are now sometimes derisively referred to as the “maplewashing” of Canadian sins. The task is easier when the leader of the country is the very embodiment of those national myths: a feel-good liberal politician that uses the right words and sends the right signals without fundamentally challenging the status quo. But Trudeau’s blackface scandal has shattered that illusion, both for the politician and perhaps the country as well." [3] Vice "Again, though, the main impact this will have on Canada is that we'll be suckered into an even more obnoxious narrative of maple-washing all of Justin Trudeau's flaws.” etc [4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Vice link is broken and I would strongly dispute that Slate provides significant coverage of the term. GNG states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The Slate article actually makes my argument we should move the information in this article to the "racism in north america" article: it uses the the term Maplewashing within the broader discussion of racism in Canada, which it should be noted is its the main topic. Festerhauer (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing with? I said "I also see non-significant use” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

errrrr if that is the case, then seems you are contradicting yourself when you earlier vouched for keeping this page because it was notable enough to be kept a.k.a Wikipedia:Notability/General notability guideline. Festerhauer (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Vice and Slate pieces are non-significant coverage, they were never presented as examples of significant coverage. If you think theres a contradiction be absolutely clear about exactly what you mean by that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the majority of the article is not a copy-paste job. I'm not sure the structure of the Racism in North America article would accommodate the current content of this article, so I don't think it should be put there. I feel my inclusion of the similar and more widely accepted term "Canadian Exceptionalism" (which has been used synonymously with "maple washing") gives the article a bit more of a leg to stand on, in terms of notability, so I think it should stay. James Hyett (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

:We can create a "history" or "background" section for the Canadian part of the Racism in North America article. We wouldn't even have to do much work because the basework information has already been done. (In general, Canadians consider themselves to be mostly free of racial prejudice, perceiving the country as a more inclusive society, a notion that has come under criticism.[4][5] For instance, the Aboriginal population in Canada has been treated badly and sustained major hardships.[2][6] These perceptions of inclusion and "colour-blindness" have been challenged in recent years, with scholars such as Constance Backhouse stating that white supremacy is still prevalent in the country's legal system, with blatant racism created and enforced through the law.[7] The term "maplewashing" has been used to describe the promotion of an idealized image of the country that emphasises tolerance and inclusion while downplaying less flattering elements of its history.[8] According to one commentator, Canadian "racism contributes to a self-perpetuating cycle of criminalization and imprisonment".[9] In addition, throughout Canada's history there have been laws and regulations that have negatively affected a wide variety of races, religions, and groups of persons.) All we have to do is expand on this paragraph. The fact that there are three interchangeable terms (Maplewashing, Canadian Exceptionalism and Cansplainin) with equal amounts of coverage in reliable references is all the more reason to put the information here in there. Festerhauer (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem to feel fairly strongly about this, Festerhauer, I'd support a merging of this article into the Racism in North America article's Canada section as you described above there. James Hyett (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Maplewashing, Canadian Exceptionalism, and Cansplaining are *not* interchangeable. Where did you get that idea? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In the link I provided above, Canadian Exceptionalism is used in a story whose title makes reference to maplewashing. In my understanding, they describe a similar phenomenon though I admit they aren't exactly interchangeable. Cansplaining is a different thing for sure. James Hyett (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks James Hyett. this seems a good idea to merge. Festerhauer (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Merging this page with Racism in North America

What does everybody think about the information on this page being merged with the Canada part of the Racism in North America article? @Horse Eye's Back:, @Canucklehead:, @Telsho:, @KNorth192:, @James Hyett: kindly refer to the discussion above and provide your answer. i will begin with this proposal by saying I strongly think the information should be merged.. Festerhauer (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You went a bit too far in clearing out the article, I think its questionable whether Maplewashing meets WP:GNG but in my opinion it does if only barely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would perhaps support merging this into a stand-alone “racism in Canada” page, I find it hard to see why we don’t already have one given how pervasive racism is in Canada and how well covered that racism is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

the information on this page can be merged into the Canadian part of the Racism in North America article while a stand-alone “racism in Canada” page is created. I would strongly dispute the idea that it has to be an either-or thing. What do you think about that? Festerhauer (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Festerhauer: Could you quit it with the article blanking? This isn't the first time you've already done so. I oppose a merge as "Maplewashing" is more than just racism but the general idea of Canada being better in many different ways than other countries. Racism is just a subtopic of it, and that has been mentioned in the Racism in North America article. Maplewashing is not part of racism, it's vice versa. I have to question your persuasion as to why you want this article to be merged in such a rushed manner. Another issue which HEB has pointed out is that I also think it's weird that Canada does not have a standalone racism article considering its history both past and present – eg. Racism in Australia, Racism in Germany, Racism in the United States, etc. We don't need a merge, in fact the article "Racism in North America" is so broad it needs to be split into different articles of their specific countries. Only then maybe we can talk about putting some of that info here in a hypothetical "Racism in Canada" article. For now, this is actually perhaps the only standalone article addressing such topics exclusively about Canada in general. Telsho (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Racism in Canada" exists now. Telsho (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

what irony of all the editor's you should bethe last one to complain because as many others have pointed out most of the information you used was copied and pasted from the "racism in north america" article. I do not see why the information you lifted from that page cannot be put back into that article and as I also pointed out, there simply isn't enough references to warrants the creation of a full, independent page for topic. If there’s more sources that report on this mapleawshing phenomenon, then maybe it deserve its own page but until then it's simply not sufficient enough for the term to having its own page. Festerhauer (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The "copied" –not verbatim– material were already addressed a long time ago, and yet you're still blanking the article. The "Racism in North America" article has problems on its own. The only tangible merge would be splitting the Canadian section off + Maplewashing + Canadian exceptionalism into a "Racism in Canada" article. What you're currently doing is removing material and then not do anything about it. That's disruptive. Telsho (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Festerhauer: Can you explain this? Telsho (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. @Festerhauer: I would have liked to support you, but it seems to me you've just been disruptive on this article and haven't provided much of a case for merging this with either Racism in Canada or Racism in North America. As Telsho pointed out, this term is used in a broader context than just regarding racism. The article stands as is. James Hyett (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Merging this page with Racism in North America: second try

Can we get another show of hands for the proposal to merge? Alot of things has happened since the last proposal discussion. The page creator has apparently been indefffed from Wikipedia for harassment.A "racism in Canada" page has been created. and ther has not been virtually no new information that has been put on this page since our last discussion so it is still just left with bare bones references for bare bones information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maplewashing&diff=984936623&oldid=984928514 everything after this edit has been just including technical information, but there has been no substance improving information. Because of this, it seems like there has been enough changes here for us to embark on another proposal. What does everybody here think?

I shall begin thsi proposal by saying I strongly support. Festerhauer (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. It hasn't been a month since the last discussion began, so this is super premature. The fact remains that Maplewashing does not exclusively refer to racist practices, so a merge would be inappropriate. You can refer to Maplewashing in that article, but there should be no merge. James Hyett (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Why would you think you can just keep proposing the same failed merger over and over? This, especially when taken with your other edits, smacks of POV-pushing. The article isn't about racism, but Canada asserting moral superiority over other nations. Are you a paid editor? You know you have to disclose that, right Fester?2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger into "Racism in Canada"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge by consensus (3-1) . CASalt (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

---

This article does not appear to meet WP:GNG, the only two sources on the article are a CBC audio essay from Savage (who coined the term), and a article from the think tank OpenCanada, also written by Savage. Whether this is constitutes significant coverage is in of itself very dubious, but nonetheless it obviously fails the criterion on independence from the subject material.

Aside from that, the only other mention of the term are fleeting mentions in Slate and WaPo opinion pieces, and per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". And in the event this somehow meets WP:GNG, I propose that it fails anyway due to WP:SOAP (a point helped by the history of the user who created this article) and WP:FORUM, since it's effectively just the summary of a political essay.

It appears that there were two earlier merge requests, but both failed due to unrelated reasons (disruptive editing, sockpuppets, and procedural reasons), hopefully this goes better. @Horse Eye's Back:, @Canucklehead:, @KNorth192:, @James Hyett: Pinging non-banned participants from past discussions. CASalt (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Support for afromentioned reasons CASalt (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support per your very clearly laid out reasoning. James Hyett (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. There's enough sourcing here to justify mentioning the term in the articles where it's appropriate and relevant to mention, but there isn't enough sourcing (and the term is far from having enough currency in actual usage) to justify a separate article about it as a standalone topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think it probably does pass WP:GNG (although it would be a grey area and another reasonable editor could look at those same sources and say no it does not pass GNG) but I will note that this page was created as an attack page by the sockmaster Ineedtostopforgetting (primarily appears as Telsho in the page history) to slight the sockmaster Waskerton (primarily appears as Festerhauer). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Against. For the reasons you mentioned (i.e., WP:GNG/WP:SOAP violations) it can be clearly seen this term of "Maplewashing" is not event fit for the page on Racism in Canada or Wikipedia overall. Hence I don't believe there should be a merger at all and the page should simply be deleted all together and the term not incorporated elsewhere. KNorth192 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.