Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Latimer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Latimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous claims

[edit]

Should there be a section in this biography discussing the questions about the legitimacy of her identity as someone with Metis / Kitigan Zibi heritage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2:BD00:78D9:67E9:4C85:A973 (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of information about this to the "early life" section. However, as a neutral encyclopedia Wikipedia has to be very careful in how we write about such matters: for example, the current dispute does not necessarily prove in and of itself that she's been deliberately misrepresenting herself as having indigenous ancestry, as it is possible that (a) she was genuinely misinformed and just trusted a thing that her parents or grandparents actually told her rather than making anything up herself, and/or (b) she actually does have indigenous ancestry and was just wrong about where her ancestors came from. We simply don't know what's actually the case as of right now — all we know for sure is that her claim to having roots in one specific indigenous community was questioned, so it's not Wikipedia's place to speculate about anything more than that. For instance, it's absolutely not our role or our place to accuse her of deliberately inventing non-existent indigenous heritage for personal gain, as she's been accused of on Twitter. (As if being indigenous were some sort of magical path to fame and fortune in the first place?) Our role is to simply stick to the known facts, not to presume anything that cannot yet be proven or supported by reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearcat wrote "As if being indigenous were some sort of magical path to fame and fortune in the first place?" That's a good point, but in Ms Latimer's case, she specifically leveraged her unsubstantiated claim of indigenous identity to collect a large number of grants and awards intended specifically for indigenous artists, so there is a significant element of personal gain (and, if the allegations prove true, moral theft from the genuine indigenous artists who did not win those grants or awards). David (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But again, what we don't know, is whether she personally invented a claim of indigenous ancestry in order to gain from indigenous-focused grants, or whether she simply trusted something that her parents and grandparents told her and never actually knew that it was false because she never had any particular reason to doubt it. There's a huge moral and ethical difference, and that's what I'm talking about: we need to simply and neutrally state the facts, and be careful not to editorialize about whether she deliberately lied or simply made a mistake because other people had lied to her. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat - The article correctly points out that she has made unsubstantiated claims of indigenous identity. We can't read her mind to know why, and I don't think it's our place to make excuses for her. I've noticed a trend of edits trying to respin the incident to put her in a kinder light, but that's not our place. We just document from the outside: she has failed to produce any credible evidence that she's indigenous, she benefited financially and professionally from her discredited claims of indigenous identity, and many indigenous and non-indigenous people who have worked with her have gone on public record expressing a feeling of betrayal. That's all that we can genuinely document here. David (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we should "make excuses" for her, but it's equally inappropriate to simply assume the worst. The thing we know for sure is that there's a gap between how she presented her heritage in the past and the actual truth — but we simply do not know whether she invented that claim herself, or simply believed what she had been told by her family without actually knowing that she had to investigate it further. That's what I'm talking about: there are two parallel lines here, bounding both sides of what's verifiable, and we have to be careful not to step across either of those lines in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In multiple articles now she has come right out and said she didnt make any effort to verify whether she was of first nation ancestry. Therefore she was falsly claming first nation heritage either because she knew she was not or she would have plausible deniability if ever questioned. There have been mulitple public figures that have claimed minority heritage and when called on it fall back on "one of my relatives said we were" BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there ever been a rule that anybody has to do their own personal genealogical research to independently reverify whether they're really the ethnicity their family told them they were before they're allowed to say that they're that ethnicity? Again, all I've ever said there's a big difference between "claimed to be indigenous because she made up false shit herself for personal advantage" and "claimed to be indigenous because she believed what her parents and grandparents had told her about their family history and genuinely didn't know that she was lied to" — both of which are real possibilities here, so we can't accuse her of the former in our editorial voice as long as the latter is still inside the range of possibilities. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzling indigenous voices

[edit]
  • Speaking as a white person, I'm dismayed that the pattern of edits for this article is playing into systemic racism and muzzling indigenous voices. For example, the interview with Elder Claudette Commanda from Kitigan Zibi cited in note 35 (at the time of my writing this) is scathing: she's quoted as saying that Latimer's claim is an "insult" to the indigenous community, challenges why anyone would make such claims, then the article goes on to say "Commanda said Kitigan Zibi has seen a recent increase in unfounded ancestry claims to the community and such acts threaten the identity of her people who have survived in the face of immense hardship." People keep editing the article to summaries like "According to members of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg nation, erroneous claims of Algonquin ancestry in the community are common due to historical confusion with Baskatong, a French Catholic community north of Kitigan Zibi which was flooded by the creation of the Baskatong Reservoir in 1927." which falsely represents the community as backing up Latimer by saying it's a mistake anyone could make. Let's be better, Wikipedians. David (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that she made some claims about her heritage that may be incorrect in some details, but the overarching narrative that she is a decendent of Indigenous people is quite possibly accurate, as supported by the reported evidence that she has Indigenous ancestry. While it is commendable to be concerned about treating Indigenous people fairly and not "muzzling" them, Wikipedia's guidelines are clear in outlining conservatism in the writing of Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs). Overall, the article appears to give undue weight to the controversy compared with all other noteworthy facts about the subject. The fact that her ancestry and truthfulness about her ancestry, as well as the repercussions involving resignations and cancellations of projects seems sufficient. But, the article has gotten mired in the weeds of details around these facts, expanding beyond what appears to be reasonable for a BLP. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as a court of law in of themselves. For instance, the Kitigan Zibi elder Claudette Commanda's statements about "Kitigan Zibi has seen a recent increase in unfounded ancestry claims to the community and such acts threaten the identity of her people who have survived in the face of immense hardship..." is a general statement about unfounded ancestry claims that others have made, and is not particularly appropriate to be republished on Latimer's article, IMHO. The fact that such generalized statements should not be included in BLPs has nothing to do with "muzzling indigenous voices", but everything to do with proper curation of facts for Wikipedian articles. The elder's statement will continue to be published at CBC, but it is not appropriate to be republished here. Basically, the subsection on the controversy ought to be pared-down. I think the following policies apply here:
  • "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." WP:BLPSTYLE
  • "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." WP:UNDUE
  • "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." WP:PROPORTION
  • "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
I think User:Bearcat is correct about how it is inappropriate to assume the worst, and there are open questions involved as Latimer served the CBC with a notice of libel. One of the cited CBC news article states "The Métis National Council does not recognize the existence of Métis communities in Quebec," which is repeated in the Wikipedia article. However, the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal People apparently uses a broader definition for Metis that would allow recognition of communities outside of the Métis National Council's recognized territory. (See: [1]) WmLawson (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the section for balance as mentioned above. However, the section is still too long, IMHO, and likely should be boiled-down to merely reporting the controversial articles that called her Indigenous identity into question and then stating that genealogical evidence from experts as well as testimony from an Algonquin Elder from Kitigan Zibi revealed that Latimer indeed has Indigenous heritage and was not attempting to deceive the public. WmLawson (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Latimer&oldid=1203504423"