Talk:Frances Widdowson

Should the line “is a Canadian political scientist and prominent conspiracy theorist” be added in the article?

There has been ongoing disagreement about whether to include the following line in the article:

"Frances Widdowson is a Canadian political scientist and prominent conspiracy theorist known for her critiques of Indigenous policy and her questioning of claims about unmarked graves and genocide at Canada's Indian residential schools.

Dispute: Some editors have repeatedly removed this line, disagreeing with the contents. Others have argued that it reflects verifiable, current information that adds important factual context and is supported by reliable sources.

Question: Should this line be added in the article, not be included, or be rewritten in another form?

Please provide reasoning with reference to relevant policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CONSENSUS. Fingray7 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Some editors [..] disagreeing with the contents.

Which editors, and where? Can you explain with your own words why you think this is accurate?

Others have argued that it [..]

Who have? Are you talking about yourself? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Widdowson has repeatedly denied the existence of gravesites at at the Kamloops Indian Residential School despite forensic evidence, survivor testimony and written account. She has repeatedly stated that accounts of abuse including child sex abuse "may involve false memories" as cited in the article. These claims directly contradict the stance of the Canadian Government who in 2022 unanimously voted to consider the Canadian Indian Residential School system an act of genocide. These statement are in line with conspiracy theories, and is comparable to Holocaust denial. And yes, I am an editor who has argued that adding the title "conspiracy theorist" is appropriate. In terms of who disagrees, I imagine those are the editors who have reverted my edits. Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I asked you about.

And yes, I am an editor who has argued that adding the title "conspiracy theorist" is appropriate.

You said that Others have argued. Who are those others? Not "you", but others. Unless, of course, you didn't actually write that yourself. Please explain, in your own words, what or whom you are talking about. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I find this comment quite strange. When I write others I was referring to myself and anyone else who might feel the same as me. I created this thread to have a productive conversation on this topic with editors who have an opinion, not to be needlessly questioned if I wrote this myself? Yes all the statements I write are written by me, and this thread is created on a template I copied from Talk:Dallas Brodie as I already discussed with you. Fingray7 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That is what you should have done after being reverted the first time. The talk page message that you copied was an RfC, and does not really make sense here. You started edit warring, ignoring warnings snd advice. I appreciate that you are trying to course correct now, but you need to understand why you were reverted if you want to solve the problem. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm confused what an RfC is, but I feel like it fits what I'm trying to do perfectly. As Wikipedia describes its "a way to ask the Wikipedia community for input on an issue" and "because Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, an RfC can act as a dispute resolution," "they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the dispute." I appreciate any input anyone has. Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but it's mostly confusing because you copy/pasted an RfC that was written for a different situation, not because you copy/pasted an RfC. As it is phrased, it implies that there is a content dispute, which I am not aware of being the case.

You also did not provide any RS above, just said what you were edit warring to put into the article. My advice is that you read WP:BLP to understand the standards Wikipedia holds biographical articles of living persons to. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I am raising a content dispute. Unless I'm confused on the process of this, that is partly the goal of this thread, since other people clearly disagreed with my edits. I have also read WP:BLP and believe that the edits I'm proposing would fit within the guidelines. Fingray7 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. As others have said, these claims need reliable sources. Your other edits have been have been condensed per WP:BALASP and WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Please discuss edits here before adding to the article per WP:BRD. I also left you some welcome links on your talk page to help before editing controversial topics. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I understand the need to condense some of the information I and other editors have added to the page, however, I think it's important to keep the "controversies" section. You included much of Widdowson's recent activities under "career" but it's not related to her work. I feel like this information should be given its own section. Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen additions have been using loaded language like "denialist" and "conspiracy theorist" without any reliable independent sources added. Those are words that need to be attributed, not written in wiki voice. Doing so undermines wiki as a apolitical, emphatically NPOV focused technical knowledge project. Abumoh00 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Abumoh00 and @Vaselineeeeeeee, I agree 100% it's important to ensure Wikipedia keeps an apolitical focus, however, the term "denialist" is widely used across media to describe Widdowson. This is not a term I would consider "loaded" considering Widdowson's frequent comments and statements highlighted within this Wikipedia article. I've also attached a few credible sources describing Widdowson in this way:

https://cfjctoday.com/2025/11/11/tru-president-says-unsanctioned-residential-school-denialist-event-unwelcome-on-campus/

https://www.aptnnews.ca/investigates/denialism-close-up-aptn-investigates-captures-frances-widdowsons-surge/

https://victoriabuzz.com/2025/12/residential-school-denialist-plans-unsanctioned-speech-at-uvic/

Thanks, Fingray7 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It is loaded whether any of us believe so or not, and whether sources use the word or not; simply by the fact that it is interpreted with a variety of meanings, often mutually exclusive meanings. That isn't politics, it's linguistics.

You are welcome to propose an addition or edit here based on clearly attributed sources, not wiki voice. Those sources aren't the greatest, 2 appear to be a local blog-esque with little editorial oversight. Abumoh00 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)