Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Article overhaul

This article is an absolute mess.

It was created in 2021 in response to media allegations that CIRS' had concealed huge numbers of child deaths by burying children on the grounds. It fails to properly explain that claim, nor the subsequent institutional responses and investigations.

Many of the cited sources are either not RS, or do not say what the article claims.

As a first step, I will remove all incited content from the lead, with a more in-depth overhaul to follow. Riposte97 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that material in the lede does not have to be sourced, and often isn't, if it is sourced in the article body. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the 'suspected unmarked graves' in the article table simply relate to graves in old cemeteries which have not been maintained. The table seems to conflate that issue with graves that were never marked, or burials which were concealed. The sources cited do not bear this out. Riposte97 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Title change

Two years on, it appears that the graves were in fact not graves, and there have been no remains discovered in the previous radar-scanned anomalies. Given that sources now either state that it was a false panic, or have remained silent on the subject, the title should probably be changed.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-nations-graves DenverCoder19 (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to WP:TNT the whole thing and start again. As you've said, it's increasingly clear that the situation was inflamed by sensationalist media and the reality is vastly different from what those early reports claimed. The scope of this article needs to be reconsidered to include, potentially, knowledge of gravesites and unmarked graves pre-2021, the 2021 media release that got the media's attention, the media reaction, protests and Church attacks as a result, the outcomes of the few digs, the cultural/legal impacts, and then the current re-examination of the media frenzy. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Probably a good idea. I've had a proper look over the rest of the article, and the talk archives. This article started (and should remain) about the 'discovery' of mass graves at Canadian schools, and the ensuing moral panic/media firestorm. We should resist scope creep to any graveyard at any school or church at which schoolchildren might have been buried in the past, which parts of this article attempt to conflate with the core claim. Riposte97 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  • • The problem we have is sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia (e.g. CBC) have never acknowledged their errors. What you're saying may fit the facts, but they don't fit the usable sources. National Post is an outlier. CBC has admitted "the radar does not find human remains", but hasn't gone back and explicitly state they were previously wrong when declaring thousands were "found". So, if we were a newspaper doing our own research and analysis, I'd agree with your proposal. But, we're not. Residential school gravesites, starting with Kamloops Indian Residential School is the biggest story, by far this century in Canada, and it's still widely accepted by most Wikipedia-deemed-reliable sources, to be true. Also, the current version of the article doesn't contain false hoods, and doesn't actually say there were bodies found. So, we've actually done as good as you can with the sources given. We can avoid repeating known falsehoods, but we can't refute falsehoods without a consensus of reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

      On the contrary, subsequent reporting (from Spiked and elsewhere) has directly refuted the gravesite claims. Besides, no reason we can't make the scope of this article more explicitly about those gravesites supposedly discovered in 2021. Riposte97 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

      So, if you're talking about this spiked piece, that's more of an editorial opinion, and filled with grotesque errors. The author took a wild leap from saying graves weren't found in the alleged sites (true), to saying there weren't many deaths (false). There's enormous evidence that large numbers of indigenous children died at and/or because of residential schools. Federal reporting of over a hundred years span verified policies of government led to many preventable deaths (e.g. sending kids to schools with known disease outbreaks). Ironically, if bodies had been found at the residential schools that wouldn't have proven anything. We've always known many kids died at residential school and the location of the bodies (at the school, church, or local community) doesn't tell us why they died. That comes from historical records of the time. --Rob (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      You have pivoted smoothly from saying that we need to cite RS even for obviously true claims, to saying that we need to discard an on-topic RS because it makes what you claim are untrue claims.

      Feel free to link us to the 'historical records of the time' (or a reliable secondary source), but I note that the Spiked article doesn't even say 'there weren't many deaths'. Riposte97 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      Spiked is a pretty bad example in of itself and the only times I have seen such "elsewhere" reports are from New York Post and Daily Mail, which, if these generally make up the only other reports that have directly refuted gravesite claims, would be understandable as to why they would be generalized here as 'elsewhere' reports rather than directly named. I would even consider the National Post to sometimes be on the fence when it comes to more controversial topics. Are there more reliable sources that can be provided which directly refute the gravesite claims? Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with Rob. B3251 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      The National Post;

      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-how-the-worlds-media-got-it-wrong-on-residential-school-graves

      Times Now;

      https://www.timesnownews.com/world/canada/kamloops-indian-residential-school-in-british-columbia-mass-graves-no-bodies-found-despite-usd-8millionprobe-article-110042089

      and The Spectator Australia;

      https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/01/the-mystery-of-canadas-indigenous-mass-graves/

      https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-conspiracy-history/

      have all published on this.

      We are in a uniquely difficult situation here, as widespread initial reporting is slowly being directly challenged by subsequent reporting. That is still no reason to abrogate our responsibility. Perhaps a balanced article should simply acknowledge that there is conflict on the question. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      These opinion pieces do not really present enough evidence to completely reorient the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      The Times article is not an opinion piece.

      A book has also been published on the topic by the Dorchester Review - 'Grave Error'. Riposte97 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      These pieces in of itself still do not establish clear reliability. WP:SPECTATOR and NP both do not have clear consensus on reliability when it comes to controversial/opinion pieces and one could argue that neither does Times Now due to its direct relation to WP:TOI. For a topic as controversial as this, there needs to be more than just bottom-of-the-barrel (mostly) opinion pieces that do not have clear consensus on reliability in order to warrant such a massive change to the article. B3251 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, you said you want links to historical records and reliable sources. Well, you kindly provided a helpful link to the National Post the National Post which said:

On the subject of reckonings and anniversaries: it was exactly 100 years ago this year that Peter Henderson Bryce, the former medical inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs, published a shocking account of the federal government’s indifference to deaths from infectious diseases and heartless neglect in the Indian residential schools. The 24-page booklet was titled, “The Story of a National Crime: Being an Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada; The Wards of The Nation, Our Allies in the Revolutionary War, Our Brothers-in-Arms in the Great War.”

So, again, lets be clear, it's well established that Canada's residential school system was culpable in the death of many children, and this has been well established for over a hundred years. This is not a matter of opinion, where we can agree to disagree. These are established facts. Separate from the *fact* of the deaths, is the false claims that bodies were found at a bunch of residential schools in the last few years, by ground-penetrating radar. Just because these false claims were made, and widely broadcast, does not mean that the previously established facts can be denied. --Rob (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean - that seems like a non-sequitur. We are here to discuss a very specific issue. To wit, the gravesites supposedly discovered at Kamloops in 2021, and at other schools since. Please don't conflate that with other issues. Riposte97 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Directly related to the issue of "Title Change", it seems entirely appropriate to change the title to something that incorporates two facts: 1) the gravesites are unmarked and 2) the "gravesites" are really "alleged gravesites". Incorporating (1) would distinguish the topic from long-known marked/documented gravesites that are not the subject of this article. Incorporating (2) would reflect the undisputed fact included in all reporting on this issue since 2021, namely that primary means of locating these sites does not recover human remains, and that human remains have not been recovered from these sites by other means.

I would therefore propose a tilte such as "Alleged unmarked gravesites at Canadian Indian residential schools". Such a title would accurate convey what was been true in this matter since day one, accurately conveys that the matter has not been fully proven either way up to the present day, and sufficiently distinguishes it from related matters that are not the subject of this article. Jstensberg (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Opinion columns undue

The National Post opinion pages do not constitute a reliable source.See WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Under what basis is this being defended for inclusion? Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the media reporting section, it is properly attributed. Riposte97 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it's undue to put an opinion thing from National Post there, not that it isn't attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well then I disagree. It is being used as a primary source of fact for the existence of the opinion it espouses. Riposte97 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think the NP article is opinion? It isn't marked as such and provides much more analysis than perspective. 15:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

undue regurgitation of old fake news

a series of suspicious fires were set at Catholic and Anglican churches

nope nope nope. Suspicions were voiced by click-bait websites, sure. Never ever substantiated. Poof. Substantiate this if you want it in the article, and it will probably still be undue for the lede. Elinruby (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed from article body: {{main|2021 Canadian church burnings}}

By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches, including eight on First Nations territories, had been burned. Indigenous leaders, the prime minister, and provincial officials have condemned the suspected arsons.

Harsha Walia, the executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, tweeted "burn it all down", and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs expressed "strong solidarity with (Harsha Walia) in condemning the brutally gruesome genocide of residential ‘school’ system by Canada and Church while crown stole FN land". Walia later advised Canadian media outlets through legal representation that she does not support arson and was speaking figuratively.

It would probably be worthwhile to link 2021 Canadian church fires as a see-also, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These fires were broadly identified as arsons and directly tied to the residential school gravesites, see the CBC. Worth far, far more than a "see also". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it was widely speculated that that was the case. If we do republish this we should omit the detail of Walia's tweet, it's already covered in the main article and it's out of balance here to only report a negative (as in supporting the fires) reaction; moreso because it was later retracted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers retracted statements all the time, particularly if they are widely reported in reliable sourcing and appear to have a substantial impact. Given that a formal investigation by a leading news agency revealed a direct tie, I would say widely speculated is failing to give reliable sources due balance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that source, I was going by how the other article described it, but you're right. I'm not concerned about Walia's reaction being retracted, only that it's calling out an incident with a living person with possibly insufficient context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, how about we remove Walia's reaction? We can maybe discuss restoring it down the road, but there's a lot of work to be done to make this article "work" again after so much of it was muddled by POV editing. It's a distraction and the BLP concerns are valid enough for me to feel just a bit uneasy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh–you already did that. Good work! Keep up the cleaning. My only two-cents was that the church burnings were a legit part of the whole thing and, for what it's worth, I think some reliable sources about genuine grave discoveries were removed by the POV editing earlier this month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: There's been an ongoing discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Abusing relevance tags after falsely accusing someone of disseminating false news and refusing to engage in a talk page discussion is not conducive to improving the article. Given that the editor you're trying to engage with has already pinged you in a discussion you started, I feel like this is approaching uncivil. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)