Talk:Yves Engler: Difference between revisions

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

I consider this page to be a vanity page and I am recommending it for deletion. Knave75 07:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is quoted elsewhere in the Wikipedia. Perhaps those quotes should get yanked, but nevertheless, I would have had more difficulty in determining how to weigh the value of his commentary without this article. —BozoTheScary 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. — Jreferee 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page reads like a vanity project, and have removed all stories about the his escapades, leaving only the books he has published. But I would also like to nominate it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstenruby (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a nomination for deletion would be inappropriate, given the subject — as a published author of multiple books — clearly meets the notability requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia (plus the national media attention he has garnered). If you do not like the tone or POV of the article, please rework the content per the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. I have returned most of the content you removed from the article, slightly restructuring and rewording where I thought appropriate. I did leave out the two parts that had “citation needed” flags given that WP:BLP guides us to not include any material lacking suitable citation in biographies of living persons. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I removed the following paragraph because it is vague, reads like an opinion, and has very little to do with him. If you want to talk about how his book references these things, that’s fine, but the section I removed (below) is not worded that way.

“Engler also highlighted Canada’s subsequent participation in the United Nations occupation of Haiti and the training of the Haitian national police by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which Engler and others have asserted has resulted in an ongoing campaign of murder, imprisonment, and political repression targeted against supporters of the Lavalas party and opponents of the un-elected interim government headed by Florida resident Gerard Latortue.[3]”

Engler also highlighted… (where? how?)

which Engler and others have asserted… how does this relate to a biographical encyclopedia entry? …in an ongoing campaign… this has nothing to do with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstenruby (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the nomination. Self-promoting pseudo-intellectual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.244.11 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engler has written numerous books and well known and respected in left-wing social media. I suspect the reason for deletion has more to do with his political leanings, than with fact. Deleting this article would be silly, as the article provides interesting details about him and lists other books that will be of interest to his audience.

—Everett (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I, like Everett and GrantNeufeld, do not see a valid justification for deleting this page about an established author. A quick look at Google Scholar shows that his books are amply cited by scholarly researchers. He is a contributor to Huffington Post (Canada). A Google News search of his name shows many entries related to the topics of his books. In my opinion, deletion would be disproportionate and should not even need to be discussed. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada messing with Haiti – not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.248.198 (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yves Engler. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits keep getting reverted by what seems to be a biased user. I would try to take the relevant comments into account (some ignore other details), but I suspect he will revert anyway and I’m not interested in an edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=869795642&oldid=869749826&title=Yves_Engler — Punkyboy (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section seems seriously deficient and lacks proper references. The Globe and Mail article only supports the statement the Engler protested against a speech by Netanyahu and was suspended. The Winnipeg Jewish Review doesn’t seem to be a reliable source. The Rabble is barely better, and the reference adds nothing about the Netanyahu protest.

There should be better references if it’s stated that Engler did anything more specific than simply protest. Windows might have been broken (big deal) and people might have been assaulted during the protest (a bigger deal), but in the absence of any alleged link between the windows and the assaults and Engler, this seems to be gratuitous guilt by association. Nothing about Engler’s involvement seems particularly notable. 2607:F0B0:7:838D:88A3:3E37:CAA1:B6AF (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reworked the Biography section using only reliable sources and renamed it. The Globe and Mail is a reliable source, but I don’t know whether an opinion article in the Globe is. Please remove the reference if it’s inappropriate. 104.192.232.20 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called reworking of the Biography section that you have done doesn’t actually improve the article in any way, this is why I have reverted your edits. As I mentioned in my previous edit summaries, you can’t simply continue reverting someone’s edits as that constitutes edit warring. One revert is allowed, and that was mine. Subsequent disagreements are to be dealt with on the talk page, which is what you should’ve done but instead you insist on reverting. This is not acceptable. A couple of tips for you: become a registered user; stop edit warring; try to achieve an agreement with other editors before imposing your changes. As I mentioned in my last edit summary, if you revert again, I will request the page be semi-protected so that you, an unregistered user, are no longer able to continue your activity. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my changes on the talk page all along, and I said so. I can write here, but I can’t reach an agreement by talking to myself. You’ve now posted here.

I changed the section to remove the reference to the Winnipeg Jewish Review, which isn’t a reliable source. The Rabble isn’t terribly reliable, and it didn’t add anything to what the Globe already said.

On the other hand, I added a link to a reliable source that says what Engler was actually accused of. The sources mention a five-year suspension, and I added this. I can’t find a reliable source that mentions a “permanent suspension”, which seems contradictory. I’ve also added a reference to an opinion article in the Globe. The Globe itself is reliable, but I don’t know whether an opinion article is suitable. The reference can be removed if it’s inappropriate.

There were statements regarding the protest or riot. The source was the unreliable source I already mentioned. In addition, the statements dealt with the protest in general rather than anything Engler did. I left the link to the Wikipedia page regarding the protest itself, but removed the statements that didn’t deal with Engler specifically.

Finally, I changed the section’s title, “Biography”. It wasn’t an actual biography, but dealt only with a specific matter. I used “Concordia University”. This seems appropriate, or “Suspension from Concordia University”, or something of the sort.

I look forward to reading your comments that actually deal with these changes and the reasons for them. 104.192.232.38 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not reverting once more. This is definitely the forum to reach an agreement on contentious issues. Here are a few points I have:

– How did you establish that the Winnipeg Jewish Review or the Rabble are not reliable sources?

– Fair point about the source mentioning the five-year suspension.

– Fair point about changing Biography to Concordia University.

Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for for participating in the discussion you’ve repeatedly asked me to have.

Google gives 27 hits for the Winnipeg Jewish Review, including mentions in Facebook, Twitter, and the like. It does not appear in List of Jewish newspapers, nor in the Wikipedia category “Jewish newspapers published in Canada”. It seems to be a one-woman operation. Much of its content seems to be reprints (sometimes with light editing) of articles published elsewhere, or links to other articles.

I don’t have a strong opinion about Rabble.ca. It’s a Website. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, it has a moderate to strong left bias, but it’s rated “High” for factual reporting. In this case, I was mostly influenced by the fact that it added nothing that was not already mentioned in more reliable sources. 2607:F0B0:7:838D:DDC7:1F0A:6F40:E108 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can drop the attitude now, it’s really not necessary. The main thing is that we’re having a conversation, isn’t it? My feeling is that unless the Winnipeg Jewish Review is a deprecated site, there is no strong reason to consider it unreliable. As for the Rabble, it sounds like you’re biased so I would leave it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inclined to agree with Revirvlkodlaku. I checked back in on this page today after having edited it sometime ago, and any cohesion or clarity in the biography section had been successfully destroyed. I don’t see any reason to dismiss the sources being used. None of them have been depreciated, and the series of events described in the current edit is basically uncontroversial, but it’s difficult to find good coverage of the event that focuses on Engler to any extent. There is probably something from the Montreal Gazette from the time, and I’ll take a look when I have a moment.Loquacious Folly (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not suggesting that this claim is not legitimate, but the footnote/reference links to a page that is not active. so I believe the claim should be removed or a new validating link be added.
This is how the claim reads:
click #2 link.
His 2009 book, The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, was short-listed for the Quebec Writers’ Federation Mavis Gallant Prize for Nonfiction. Daws7172 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I’ve removed it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read Engler’s piece on the Rwandan genocide, its hard not to see it as anything other than plain genocide denial. I will not edit it as to not start an edit war and due to the partially restricted nature of the article, but I think we should consider not whitewashing the views of someone who might be the next Prime Minister of Canada. – MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it genocide denial? The figures he puts forward are in agreement with Human Rights Watch, as quoted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#Death_toll_and_timeline 107.159.57.249 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a source in the article showing HRW came to that conclusion. Leoolkh (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be removed. The section is simply a summary of an article published by Engler on his website, with no notable sources indicating that this is a noteworthy controversy. Furthermore, original research has been inserted with citations that do not directly refer to the incident.Andwats (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I can find reporting on Engler’s alleged genocide denial is a tabloid called the Toronto Sun. There doesn’t seem to be a solid consensus on the website on Wikipedia, but as a right-leaning tabloid it would probably not exactly be considered a bastion of good journalism. It is used without issue on several other pages, however, and in this case simply quotes Engler’s blog. Should it be used until better sources emerge? JPHC2003 (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Sun has about the worst reputation for accuracy of any traditional newspaper in Canada.Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting you, but could you provide your reasoning for that alongside some sources? JPHC2003 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This is a good starting point. Basically leaked memos indicated that, beyond reporting or even spinning news, Toronto Sun aimed to manufacture it. There’s also extensive records of accuracy complaints at the National Newsmedia Council [2]. Here is reporting on one such complaint [3]. Here’s another example of reporting on their accuracy issues. [4]

This isn’t exhaustive. There’s more. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a tabloid the Sun is considered a questionable source so should not generally be used. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there’s quite a few WP:ABOUTSELF sources that indicate Engler’s… heterodox… view on Rwanda. However, while I, as a relatively educated person, can recognize that those views differ from the consensus view in Canada of these events, should they be used, they should be attributed WP:ABOUTSELF statements that avoid editorializing. [5] [6] [7] [8]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun does not meet the definition of WP:QUESTIONABLE. Tabloid (newspaper format) refers only to it’s format. It is part of List_of_newspapers_in_Canada and therefor constitutes WP:NEWSORG. As such, and since it is one of the largest papers in Canada, the following guidance from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources applies: “News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).” Moreover, content from the Sun is widely used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia, you will note the label at the bottom of the Toronto Sun article. In this case, the following Sun article merely reports on the fact that Engler discussed Rawanda on his blog: https://torontosun.com/news/national/rwandan-groups-denounce-genocide-claims-by-ndp-leadership-hopeful Andwats (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is listed in List of newspapers in the United Kingdom yet it definitely is not an RS. Also, in the case of the Toronto Sun, tabloid refers not only to its physical format but to its editorial format and its style of journalism. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted both are WP:NEWSORG and can be used reservedly (as should any news source). Only one sentence in the Toronto Sun article refers to it as tabloid in respect to editorial style: “In 1988, The Washington Post described the Sun as an example of tabloid journalism.” That is neither current nor relevant to 2025, nor does it negate the fact that the Toronto Sun is widely cited on Wikipedia Andwats (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The National NewsMedia Council referred to the Toronto Sun as “tabloid journalism” as recently as 2020.[9] Wellington Bay (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The Toronto Sun is a founding and current member of the National NewsMedia Council. Andwats (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is right there in Wellington Bay’s comment. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun being cited elsewhere just means the Sun needs to be removed from other pages. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it is not. National NewsMedia Council ruled that the Sun’s article bordered on tabloid journalism and found that unfitting of one of it’s members which by definition is news media. Andwats (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decision concludes with “While tabloid journalism often aims to provoke, language choice is important when reporting on sensitive subjects. In this case, it is regrettable that inappropriate wordplay caused pain to a community experiencing racism and violence.” Nowhere does the decision say the Sun merely “bordered on” tabloid journalism. The last sentence clearly shows that the NNC is assessing the Sun as tabloid journalism. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t. The Toronto Sun is still a member. The ruling has merit because it the Sun failed to uphold standards. If the Sun were IN FACT tabloid journalism, the ruling would have resulted in their being removed from the council. Andwats (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some exact quotes from the linked ruling: “The newspaper published the front-page headline…” and “The news organization responded to the complaint…” and “The NNC noted the news media organization acknowledged…”. The ruling also notes that the content of the article was acceptable. Andwats (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the decision also considers the Sun to be tabloid journalism. Your claim that they said the Sun “bordered on” tabloid journalism is an interpolation. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The NNC recognizes the historical tradition of tabloid newspapers to shock, entertain, or provide a sensationalist tone on current events. Nevertheless, the NNC is of the view that despite these historical considerations, news organizations must strive to respect and show sensitivity toward individuals or communities in the wake of tragic events.” How does that statement exclude the Sun from the category of tabloid journalism or say that they merely “bordered on” it? Wellington Bay (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it include it? That is a general statement about the historical tradition of tabloid journalism… it doesn’t, as you assert, say “The Sun is a tabloid.” Andwats (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no statement in your source that says the Sun is tabloid journalism. You claimed National NewsMedia Council is an authority on news media, and the Sun is a member… by definition the Sun must therefore be a news organization and falls into WP:NEWSORG. Andwats (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to challenge the Toronto Sun as a reliable source the place to do it is on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There is an RFC for The Daily Mail (here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail) and for The Sun (United Kingdom) (here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun) but there is no such RFC for the Toronto Sun. Andwats (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“If the Sun were IN FACT tabloid journalism, the ruling would have resulted in their being removed from the council.” – this is incorrect. Under the NNC’s governance policy[10] “If there have been numerous and/or egregious upheld complaints against the Member, the Board may terminate the membership of that Member effective immediately following a resolution approved by at least 75% of all of the Directors of the Council at a duly constituted meeting of the Board.” So no, a single ruling would not have resulted in the Sun being expelled. Furthermore, as a practical matter, as Postmedia (which owns the Sun) is the single largest membership bloc within the council the chances that the Toronto Sun would be expelled, no matter how egregious their violation, is slim to none. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relevant see above. There is no RFC prohibiting the use of the Toronto Sun so far as I can tell. You can definitely request one. Andwats (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

” You claimed National NewsMedia Council is an authority on news media, and the Sun is a member… by definition the Sun must therefore be a news organization and falls into WP:NEWSORG.” Nope. The Daily Mail is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation [11] – by your argument does that mean the Daily Mail is “by definition” a news organisatiion that falls into WP:NEWSORG? But of course, that’s not the case. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think your argument about National NewsMedia Council is relevant nor conclusive either way. There is an RFC, it turns out, restricting the use of The Daily Mail for citations. I cannot find one for the Toronto Sun. Andwats (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All reliability is contextual. There is no context in which the Sun, with its atrocious reputation for accuracy and its ongoing tendency to freely blend editorial and news reporting is appropriate for a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion. The Toronto Sun has been mentioned repeatedly on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but the community has not concluded that it is unreliable. Therefore, in general in Wikipedia and in this article, the Toronto Sun can be used with the guidelines described in WP:NEWSORG. Andwats (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but the bar for reliability in context is not “nobody said no”, especially when I am, in fact, saying no. If you want to include disputed material from a source whose reliability has been challenged, into a BLP then the WP:ONUS is upon you to demonstrate the Sun is reliable. You’ve been shown the litany of NNC criticisms and complaints against the Sun and have ignored them because you find this tabloid convenient. If you want the Rwanda material in the article it’s simple: better sources are required. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you look here since no editor who has engaged with that thread thinks the sourcing is sufficient to for the Rwanda material. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agreed that the Rawanda section should be deleted, in fact I started that discussion. You are arguing that the Sun should not be included at all in this article. But that is contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If that is your opinion, the place to discuss that is there, and the thing to do is go through the RfC process. Andwats (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the Toronto Sun should not be used for BLPs. At all. Maybe sports scores; they’re generally accurate about that sort of basic information. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: and you’re jumping the gun on an RfC here. You’d want to ask the question first at that noticeboard if you want a second opinion to mine per WP:RFCBEFORE. You don’t start an RfC just because you disagree with two other editors. And let me remind you that Wellington Bay seems to agree with me above there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not the place to make general statements about the reliability of the source.

A second opinion has already been asked in the latest discussions on the noticeboard and there was no consensus leading to an RfC that determined it as unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Can_the_Toronto_Sun_be_used_as_a_citation_in_Wikipedia?

And here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#National_Post,_Toronto_Star,_Toronto_Sun Andwats (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry why would I present an RfC? The source doesn’t have WP:GUNREL, it’s a national news source that has already been discussed repeatedly in the right place and no RfC was presented. If you think it is unreliable, then YOU can present an RfC or begin a third discussion on the noticeboard. Andwats (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Sun is a local newspaper, not a “national news source”, unlike the National Post, Globe and Mail, and even the Toronto Star which are all widely available in most of the country. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to, if you have you have to go scrounging through the trash for any source at all to support an assertion about a BLP that assertion is likely undue. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, WP:ONUS lies with the party trying to include information to demonstrate the information is due. You have not done so and don’t have a local consensus that the Sun is reliable for this BLP. If you want that consensus to form it’s up to you to seek a broader consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I don’t think so, since you are creating a dispute that has already been resolved elsewhere (i.e. the noticeboard) since you are arguing that the Sun is WP:GUNREL, which it is not.

I am surprised that you aren’t interested in having an RfC. I will gladly initiate the noticeboard discussion because it would be generally useful to have a tag for the Sun, but as I don’t have a firm opinion on the reliability of the Sun in general, I am not the best person to do that.

In this case, the decision was made to remove the Rwanda section notwithstanding the Sun as a source. In fact, the Sun was not cited in that section at the time. Moreover, the Sun article in fact only quoted Engler’s blog, which seems clearly to follow WP:NEWSORG.

Curiously, I also note that one of the complaints at NNC against is from someone involved in Engler’s campaign. Andwats (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, not every unreliable tabloid is WP:GUNREL. You do not have consensus to use the Toronto Sun as a source for this BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’ll take it to the noticeboard tonight. Andwats (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion on the noticeboard. @Wellington Bay perhaps you will also be interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Toronto_Sun_Once_Again Andwats (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the correction. I assumed it shared editors with the rest of Sun Media. But it does have it’s own Editor-in-Chief. It is one of the most circulated news papers in Canada. Andwats (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Popularity doesn’t make something credible (see argumentum ad populum fallacy). Fox News is the US’ most popular news channel. Tabloids have higher circulations than broadsheets – The two highest circulation newspapers in the UK are The Sun and the Daily Mail. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assert that it did. Andwats (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we can work to improve the section on Engler and antisemitism. He’s been catching a fair number of strays from the Left for tip-toing over the line from critiques of Israel to critiques of Judaism in the last little while. Unfortunately, as a lot of this is “leftist infighting” I’m not sure if there’s much in the way of usable sources about it. I was planning on doing some digging but it’s a ways down my list so I thought I’d at least drop this note to see if anyone else wanted to have a look. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if we can use this as a source but the International Bolshevik Tendency has written a critique of Engler from a left perspective [12] Wellington Bay (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s going to be a challenge to include – it’s definitely editorial and would require attribution at minimum. However I’ll also say it does lay out most of the critique from the Left very clearly and articulately. About the only thing it’s missing is criticism of Engler associating with figures like Jackson Hinkle. I’d personally support limited attributed use of the source but I recognize this would be a controversial position. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section below reads as original research and POV-pushing considering most of the articles cited don’t mention Engler at all. It should be removed given the lack of secondary sources available at the moment.

In 2017, Engler wrote an article engaging with scholarly debates on the Rwandan genocide, including those concerning the death toll and Canada’s role in the region.^[1][2][3] In 2025, following the launch of his NDP leadership campaign, B’nai Brith Canada issued a statement accusing Engler of genocide denial.^[4]

These accusations mirror a documented pattern noted by scholars, in which the Rwandan government and its supporters label differing views on aspects of the genocide as “genocide denial”, even when the genocide itself is not denied.^[5] Such aspects include the death toll and subsequent war crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.^[6][7] Engler has rejected the accusation and characterized it as a politically motivated smear campaign linked to his criticism of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.^[8] JPHC2003 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were problems with the previous version. Perhaps we should remove the section completely. Burrobert (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the order. Also, as this article is semi-protected, deleting the section might be a concern. The self-published blog post isn’t notable in and of itself, but the B’nai Brith criticism is. So I would be ok with something like: “B’nai Brith Canada issued a statement accusing Engler of genocide denial following a blog post he wrote on the Rawandan genocide.Engler rejected the accusation and characterized it as a politically motivated smear campaign linked to his criticism of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza”.Andwats (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• Why is the opinion of a Jewish service organisation about the Rwandan genocide notable?
• The B’nai Brith press release describes Engler as a “political agitator”, suggesting it may have a axe to grind.
• The B’nai Brith press release does not accuse Engler of genocide denial. The only mention of genocide denial is in the headline, which is not a reliable source. Burrobert (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

–B’nai Brith Canada has an article and therefore is notable. It is also cited here: https://torontosun.com/news/national/rwandan-groups-denounce-genocide-claims-by-ndp-leadership-hopeful, Engler also discusses it in a blog post. So there’s no doubt about the facts.

-Engler has described himself as an “agitator” https://montrealgazette.com/news/agitator-yves-engler-charged-with-harassment-and-obstruction-of-justice

-I agree with your assessment of the headline.

This is my proposed rewrite… but I’m not 100% against just deleting the section.

In 2025, Engler was critized for minimizing the 1994 genocide against Rwanda’s Tutsi population in a joint statement issued by B’nai Brith Canada, the Humura Association, Ibuka Canada, Page Rwanda, and Memory Keepers Association of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. The Tornoto Sun linked the B’nai Brith complaint to a blog post of Engler’s, although the statement refers to a series of X posts Engler allegedly authored on July 12, 2025. Engler has rejected the accusation and characterized it as a politically motivated smear campaign linked to his criticism of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Andwats (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a document is not a guarantee the document is WP:DUE or appropriate for a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Accused of” or “alleged to have” is more neutral than “criticised for” since saying he was “critized for minimizing the 1994 genocide ” implies he did minimize it rather than making it an allegation. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“accused of” works imho. As this is about “Views”, as opposed to “criticism” or “controversies”, I wonder if we should include more statements form Engler’s reply and original blog post. Andwats (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not disputing that B’nai Brith is notable as an organisation. I was asking why its view on the Rwanda genocide was notable. The joint statement says he ” appeared to minimize the atrocities carried out against the Tutsi community” in the social media posts. The following is not an argument for or against anything but is something many people would wonder about. Isn’t it odd that the Engler’s blog and social media posts were made in 2017 and that the joint statement was made in July 2025? Burrobert (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the B’nai Brith is a notable organization but whether their comments about Engler and Rwanda are notable. The way we assess that is whether the comments have been covered by an independent, third party source such as a credible media outlet or an academic journal or book. If the comments have only been picked up by the Toronto Sun I think there’s an argument to be made that they are not notable, particularly given WP:BLP. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tend to agree. I think the guidelines for Wikipedia:Criticism also apply here. And, although Engler has a view that x, that view is also not notable… unless for instance it became part of his campaign or was widely reported on. As such, the Rawanda section should probably be deleted. Andwats (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Yves Engler and Rwanda genocide denial. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut the Rwanda section for now on the basis of this discussion and the one at BLP/N. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources disputing the fact of his candidacy citing NDP officials. As such this section should be re-written as “Yves Engler announced his intention to run for NDP Leadership on such and such a date… but as of October 2025 he had yet to officially register as a candidate. Articles prior to October 2025 referring to him as an NDP leadership candidate should be either rejected or tagged as unreliable imho. Andwats (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no source to support the claim in the NDP leadership campaign section that Engler was denied entry from the ONDP convention other than the one currently cited in the article: https://ndpsocialists.ca/ondp-leader-decides-to-hang-on-yves-engler-denied-access-to-convention-floor/. This is a a self-published source or at least it is a third-party affiliated with the subject of this article (they nominated him as their leadership candidate). Since the claim is about another entity, Ontario New Democratic Party, this does not appear to me to meet WP:ABOUTSELF and since there do not appear to be any other sources whatsoever reporting on the incident, I think this claim should be removed. I note that there are other minor factual inaccuracies in the source, for instance it claims that Heather McPherson was a leadership candidate at the time of it’s publication (September 23rd) but she didn’t actually announce her candidacy until September 28th according to 2026_New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election. Andwats (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this claim. If a source can be found to support it, the edit should be reverted and that source should be added. Andwats (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no citations to improve the first paragarph of the Haiti section:

Engler was critical of Canada’s role in the 2004 Haitian coup d’état. He co-authored a report entitled Canada in Haiti: Waging War Against the Poor Majority and helped establish a group called the Canada-Haiti Action Network.

I can find the book in question, but can find no reference to Engler’s involvement with the Canada-Haiti Action Network, although I don’t have doubts that it is true nor that he authored the book. But I think summarizing the book and Canada-Haiti Action Network without secondary sources would require Original Research.

As such, I think this paragraph should be removed. The second paragraph sufficiently identifies Engler’s views and does so with adequate sources. Andwats (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified this section as described.Andwats (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opening section states:

Engler’s writings have appeared in alternative press and in mainstream publications such as The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, and Ecologist.

I can find no articles authored by Engler in the Ottawa Citizen or Toronto Star. Here’s my search results:

https://ottawacitizen.com/search/?search_text=yves+engler

https://www.thestar.com/search/?tncms_csrf_token=aedb06cb10de33092ca5e1bbdcef380882bd33fd4050f0b58bd038351311622f.cf657b49f88c78c6ccd4&l=25&s=start_time&sd=desc&d1=&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&nsa=eedition&q=yves+engler Andwats (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references the TorStar and Ottawa Citizen references because they are not verifiable.