# Talk:Who Killed Canadian History?

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Killed Canadian History?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"Following its publication, the provinces Alberta and Manitoba implemented new history curricula" — needs to clarify, what did they change
Added info on this.
Lead should clarify what Granatstein advocates changing about Canadian history writing and education. Is it more focus on military and diplomatic history, less coverage of indigenous people, more time devoted to history overall, or something else?
I added a sentence onto the first paragraph summarizing this.
"shared past", a notion he finds specious" I would consider elaborating a bit or rewriting for clarity. After all, there's the criticism that a nation is "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours". Yet an idea can have power even if it's not historically accurate.
I elucidated on this with more from Stanley.
There are some MOS:AWW issues in the reception section, flagged in the article.
I've changed it to mention the specific historians.
"the provinces Alberta and Manitoba implemented new and expanded history curricula"—see above
Added info on this.
The lead directly connects the book with founding Historica Canada, but the article doesn't support that contention
Added info on this.
Overall, quite well written, but needs some tweaks/fixes (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm happy you're doing this review; I hadn't written a page on a book before, so when I started writing my original draft I used your GA The Pink Swastika as a handy guide. Tkbrett (✉) 17:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm flattered :) Having checked the criteria I am confident that this meets them. Great work! (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: Per your comment regarding the journal's standard, I'm restoring the status quo with regards to citation formatting. Any potential change to this article should be discussed here to seek consensus; a discussion on another talk page regarding a different journal in a different article does not qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The journal does not have a 'standard' that overules basic English-language/Wikipedia citation rules, just like in Talk:Louis Riel#How should Journal of Canadian Studies be cited?. The English title of the journal is Historical Studies in Education, not Historical Studies in Education/Revue d'histoire de l'éducation. From the inside cover:
Historical Studies in Education is an open-access journal published twice annually, in Spring and Fall, by the Canadian History of Education Association. We are grateful to the Faculty of Education, and the Departments of Curriculum and Pedagogy and Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia for their financial and admin-istrative support. The journal also gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions of private individuals and organizations in the form of donations and/or long term renewals. The support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is also gratefully acknowledged.
and then later
Historical  Studies  in  Education/La  Revue  d’histoire  de  l’éducation  is  indexed  in/est  indexée dans America: History and Life; Canadian, American and International Open Access (OA) listserves; Canadian Historical Review; CBCA Complete; CBCA Education; Contents Pages in Education; Current Abstracts; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Genamics Journal Seek; Google  and  Google  Scholar;  Historical  Abstracts;  Professional  Proquest  Central;  ProQuest  Central;  TOC  Premier;  Scholars  Portal;  Sociology  of  Education  Abstracts;  and  Clarivate  Analytics Web of Science (formerly Thomson Reuters) Emerging Sources Citation Index.ISSN 0843-5057 (Print)ISSN 1911-9674 (Online)Historical Studies in Education/Revue d’histoire de l’éducationVolume 33, number/numéro 1Spring/printemps 2021
The journal uses the bilingual title when in a bilingual context, and an English title in an English context.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The journal uses the bilingual title throughout most of its content, including as noted how it advises its articles be cited. We don't have a rule compelling us to ignore that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Because it is of interest to both French and English scholars, which may cite it as either (not both). And we do have rules compelling us to follow rules of basic English. If you ask an English person where they published their article, they'll say they've published in Historical Studies in Education, not Historical Studies in Education/Revue d'histoire de l'éducation.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What rules are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Basic English rules.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There are no "basic English rules" requiring we pretend a bilingual title is English only. The journal is regularly cited in external English-language sources using the full bilingual title. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm will weigh into this more when I'm home and have access to something other than mobile, but in the meantime: I emailed the journal's editor, Jason Ellis, to ask what the journal's preference is on how its name is cited. This is what he had to say: "We use the full bilingual name and ask authors publishing with us to also do that. However, if this is a publishing question, you should ask your publisher. If it's a library or index question, the full name is the one attached to the ISSN I believe." Tkbrett (✉) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Publisher's preference is irrelevant, and the ISSN name is Historical Studies in Education.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this is a pointless argument, and for the vast majority of journals it doesn't matter whether they're cited bilingually or monolingually. However, I want to make two points here: first is any user who claims that the conversation at Talk:Louis Riel#How should Journal of Canadian Studies be cited? indicated or led to a consensus is, to assume good faith, confused. What that conversation showed is that there simply is no consensus. Second, while for most journals the question can be argued, for some journals--including Histoire Social / Social History citing them in English only is simply incorrect. (There might be an argument to be made that it could be cited with its French title only, but I think even that would be dubious; there is certainly no argument to be made that it is properly cited in English only.) Remes (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus there, with the majority of people supporting citing things with their English title on the English Wikipedia.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied content:In her study of Louis Riel historiography, historian Jennifer Reid agrees with the book's sentiment that Canadians regret their lack of cultural heroes, but questions why Granatstein opposes the celebration of Riel.[64] Granatstein describes Riel as a "crazed religious fanatic" and argues that not all Canadians could agree on whether his actions were heroic.[65] According to historian George Goulet, by Granatstein's standard no historical figure could ever be fit to be a Canadian hero.[66]Cblambert (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)