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.
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. 5225C (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)
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 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)
We have an article titled Resurrection of Jesus, that doesn't show bias that we think there was a resurrection. It shows how the topic is commonly referred to, both by believers and disbelievers. The current title of this article is the best representation of how the topic is commonly referred to in reliable sources. No title (of reasonable length) is going to convey everything that needs to be conveyed. A title is something somebody would search for in seeking information on the topic. Also, marked graves (that is graves which have always been marked) are actually part of the story. Specifically, at Cowessess, there was a graveyard where the graves were all marked, but over time, they have been grown over or "unmarked". Photos of Trudeau's visit to the graveyard, garnered a great deal of attention, and sometimes was presented as though he was visiting newly discovered graves, when he was really visiting a well known and established graveyard. You can't talk about unmarked graves without mentioning marked graves. Also, while no graves were found at the Kamploops and later cases that used GPR, there were in fact older cases where unmarked (at the time of discovery) graves were found, purely by accident (no GPR). So, basically, it makes no sense to get a super long restrictive title, that's actually too restrictive. --Rob (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Therein lies some of the problem, from my perspective. There is a conflation of all of those things in the article. I'm going to start a new thread to try to get consensus on the appropriate scope of this article as a first step. Riposte97 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
A good “first step” would be to include “hoax” in the article title, as that is what this is. But you “truth tellers” are obsessed with maintaining this lie as long as possible in the hopes that more hate crimes are caused by it. 76.183.153.14 (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
In the table of suspected graves it describes the finding of the partial remains of a child in a grave at the Qu'Appelle residential school, sourced to [1]. The Spiked source that you provided, which is the successor of a magazine that was run out of business for denying the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, really shouldn't be used as a source for any information about anything described as a genocide. Ignoring that, it does not say that no bodies were found: it says that none were found in the five specific searches it names, which does not include Qu'Appelle. It also gives its unqualified opinion that "no evidence has been found to support the claims of a ‘genocide’", which is highly suspect given their known history of genocide denial. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It also contradicts this source, which is obviously higher-quality: The discovery comes less than a month after the “unthinkable” discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children — some as young as three years old — in unmarked graves near the Kamloops Indian Residential School outside Kamloops, B.C.; I suspect that Spiked is playing around with the word "excavated" here to get their desired headline, but the key point is that the National Post unambiguously describes the discovery of the remains. We cannot use a weaker source like Spiked in a way that is intended to imply that they weren't actually discovered because they were detected with ground-penetrating radar rather than passing the Spiked author's arbitrary bar of having been excavated. --Aquillion (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Fully agree with Aquillion's appraisal here. I'm fairly certain that there's no justifying a description that suggests no additional graves were (re)discovered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding something in that source, "underground radar detection" is the method used, which is exactly the same claim that was used to "discover" bodies in the three sites now proven not to contain any. That's not really an announcement of a discovery, it's an announcement of a survey that's produced an estimate of what could be there. This is the exact problem we've been discussing for the last week or so. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I strongly concur Spiked is not a reliable source. It is in full fledged denialism. But, also, with regard to the above mention of this 2021 source, we have to take note of the exact timing of stories (from 2021 to 2024). The very first stories by the NYT and CBC were of "mass graves" found by GPR. That then soon became just graves found by GPR. Now, in 2024, the CBC says "However, the radar does not find human remains. It detects soil disturbances that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, which combined with community knowledge can help identify where there may potentially be unmarked graves.". That's a huge shift (given that all the reports of graves "found" by GPR). However, the CBC, and other mainstream media, never explicitly say "no graves were found" at 2021-now sites. Unfortunately, the situation is complicated, and nuanced, and no reliable source has done a comprehensive re-evaluation of what is, and isn't "found". Sources like "Spiked" try to take the errors in mainstream reporting, and use them to deny pretty much everything bad that happened in residential schools. So, there isn't any concise way of summing up the entire situation. --Rob (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. I take the point that Spiked is not the ideal source for this. I meant to get to finding a better alternative today, but have been snowed under. We are in an even more complicated position because it is totally uncontroversial that children died at these schools, and were buried either on the grounds and nearby. I don't believe Spiked takes issue with that, but that's beside the point. There were graves on IRS grounds, and in some cases were poorly maintained, burned down, or were allowed to grow over. That's uncontroversial. What distinguishes the claims made in 2021 (and makes them notable) is the allegations of mass graves and never-marked graves. That implies something very different about the circumstances in which the students died than had thitherto been understood. All of these discoveries were made by ground-penetrating radar. Even at the time, the anthropologists conducting these surveys were clear that anomalies were possibly or probably graves, but that only exhumation could confirm it. That is one reason why just calling the anomalies found 'discovered graves' is fraught. I understand that at one of the sites, a human jawbone has been found. However, the circumstances of that discovery are unclear to say the least. There was a source in this article which I removed, that said that those remains were found in a marked grave on a local farmer's land. I think we need to be clear that this article deals primarily with those suspected graves found in 2021, though it's probably appropriate to note that marked burials were common practice. I am not opposed to @Aquillion:'s suggestion in the above topic as a way to achieve this greater clarity. Should we just revert the whole article to the state it was in last week, and start over with our goals clearly defined? Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I said as much at RSN, but Spiked is so unreliable that if they told me it was raining, I'd stick my hand out from under the umbrella just to make sure. Especially when it comes to the issue of genocide; after all, Spiked is quite literally Living Marxism with a fresh coat of paint, and given LM was forced to shutter when its denial of the Bosnian genocide saw it on the receiving end of a libel suit, and the person who wrote the article that got LM sued is the editor of Spiked... yeah, it has no place on this article especially. Sceptre (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Article scope
I believe much of the conflict around this article can be explained by the fundamentally different conceptions of its scope held by different editors.
In my view, it is uncontroversial that students died whilst attending these institutions, and were buried either in graveyards on the grounds, or in local cemeteries. That fact is simply not notable, or at least not notable enough for a standalone article.
What is notable, and what spawned this article in 2021, was the purported discovery of thousands of never-marked graves across Canada at the sites of former IRS. These discoveries caused an uproar.
I believe we should be clear that this article covers unmarked child graves of the kind reported upon at Kamloops in 2021. Otherwise, this article will essentially just list graveyards and former graveyards across Canada. Riposte97 (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The previous lead was a lot more clear that it was talking about unmarked graves and provided more context as to their notability from the body; and there's clearly enough coverage to make it notable. I think we should probably broadly revert the lead back to the old version and work from there. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I've started to try to focus things, starting with the Background section. Happy to discuss any of those changes. Will move on to the rest tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Riposte97 You really need to self-revert these changes which severely harm the WP:NPOV of the article. I would but I am on mobile until to
tomorrow and the app doesn't handle multi-edit reverts well. please stop and build consensus for such dramatic reductions of the weight given to the truth and reconciliation commission. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent mass removals of content by Riposte97 which did not have consensus and which removed large amounts of relevant, properly sourced, and in scope content, and I have also restored the lede prior to their similar mass deletions from it last week. This article is about gravesites at Canadian Indian Residential Schools, both known and unmarked/undiscovered/suspected, and controversy about the ways in which there came to be children's graves at residential schools in the first place. It is not only about the controversy over the discoveries since 2021, and never has been. Deleting the known history of IRS burials does not make the article "more neutral", it just erases relevant history and background. Please discuss your proposed changes, and note that consensus means discussing your proposed changes and coming to an agreement among all editors with significant viewpoints, not ignoring opposing viewpoints and plowing on in spite of disagreement. Riposte97, it has become quite clear that you are repeatedly trying to remove neutral information and add inappropriately sourced opinions downplaying the significance of these events, as evidenced quite clearly by your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative that there are no bodies (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]) and removing sources that don't conform with that false statement. If you do not stop this, I will seek to have you banned from the topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I for one thought Riposte97's edits were a significant improvement and a thoroughly decent good-faith attempt at implementing the discussions we've had on this page, and completely reject your characterisation of their work on this article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Starting a thread on revamping the page back to a less neutral form on the day of a Canadian long weekend, when most interested editors are likely not on Wikipedia, then taking no responses over two and a half days as carte blanche to begin said less-neutral edits is not best practice. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
We've had a few discussions which can be used to inform the direction of this article going forward. Reverting to a version of the article I think we all agree is deeply flawed is not productive. Riposte97's edits are a step in the right direction, and in my view made the article substantially more neutral by removing shoddily-sourced material and tightening up the exposition. They don't need to be perfect on the first pass. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: threats of that nature are rarely justified, and are not at all appropriate in this instance. My edits of yesterday deliberately didn't touch the issue of whether bodies had actually been found. All I did was remove poorly sourced, inaccurate, and irrelevant material from the 'background' section. I believe I left its core claims intact - for example, that the T&RC called the system a cultural genocide. In any case, I will review the edits I made one-by-one and post them here for discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Paragraphs 1 and 2 - These paragraphs currently read:
A network of boarding schools for Indigenous children was funded by the Canadian government, and administered by Catholic and Anglican churches across the country. It was created to remove and isolate Indigenous children and forcefully assimilate them into the colonial Canadian culture.
The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation determined in 2015 that the explicit government policy of the forced assimilation amounted to cultural genocide, years before the unmarked graves were confirmed nationwide, but the confirmation of deaths set off a wave of grief in the survivors and forced the rest of the nation to acknowledge the enduring wrongs of its colonial past.
I propose changing that to:
The Canadian Indian residential school system was a network of boarding and day schools for Indigenous children funded by the Canadian government, and administered by Catholic and Anglican churches across the country. It was created to remove and isolate Indigenous children and forcefully assimilate them into Canadian society, in what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015 called a 'cultural genocide.'
This change preserves all the core claims, but makes them more concise. It notably changes 'colonial Canadian culture' to 'Canadian society'. I think that reads as less POV. It also omits the phrase 'the confirmation of deaths set off a wave of grief in the survivors and forced the rest of the nation to acknowledge the enduring wrongs of its colonial past'. Whatever one thinks about the accuracy and neutrality of that phrase (and I have some questions) it clearly belongs in a different section. It is not background. Riposte97 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Paragraphs 3 and 4 - These paragraphs currently read:
The residential school system ran for over 120 years; the last school closed in 1997. Many Indigenous children died at residential schools, mostly from disease or fire. Peter Bryce, chief medical officer for Indian affairs, reported in 1907 that up to a quarter of all children who attended residential schools died. He reviewed tuberculosis cases and estimated that the mortality rate at these schools was more than eighteen times the rate of school-aged Canadians in general. Anti-tuberculosis antibiotics became widely used in the 1950s, which led to a decline in the incidence of the disease. Children died in huge numbers in the residential school system for over a century "and those who had the power to prevent these deaths did little to stop it."The Bureau of Indian affairs made a policy decision not to return the children's bodies to their families, citing cost, and frequently didn't notify them of their deaths either.
Few school cemeteries are explicitly documented, but given when the schools operated and how long, most likely had a cemetery. Some were once officially associated with a school but then were overgrown and abandoned after the school closed, while others may have been unmarked burial sites even when the school was in operation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report confirmed ir had found records of 3,201 deaths at the schools, but chairman Murray Sinclair estimated total deaths were more realistically between 6,000 to 25,000.
I propose changing that to:
The residential school system ran for over 120 years; the last school closed in 1997. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report confirmed it had found records of 3,201 deaths at the schools, mostly from disease. The Bureau of Indian affairs made a policy decision not to return the children's bodies to their families, citing cost, and frequently didn't notify them of their deaths either. Murray Siclair, who chaired the Commission, speculated that the true number of deaths could be anywhere between 6,000 and 25,000. Some of the students who died at the schools were buried in graveyards on the school grounds, or nearby.
This change removes a lot of redundant information and imprecise wording. It also removes a paraquote attributed to Peter Bryce, sourced to an opinion piece in The Walrus. Given the earlier contentiousness of relying on the Spiked opinion piece, it might be productive to agree to leave opinion pieces and polemics aside for the time being. More importantly, however, the one-quarter death rate quoted is contradicted by the National Post story cited in that same paragraph. Therefore, even if the quote merely refers to a particular year (which is not made clear), it conflicts with a better source.
My proposal also cuts away the lengthy detour into tuberculosis. The tuberculosis points do not provide any context either to the overall mortality rate in the schools, nor into the operation of the schools across time.
Finally, I cut much of the discussion about cemeteries in the fourth paragraph. The first sentence in that paragraph is attributed to a really unusual unpublished source. It also seems to contradict several other sources, which claim that local Indigenous people often well knew where school dead were buried. The claim that some graveyards were unmarked from their inception is unsourced, and enormously contentious, as it might imply that deaths were hidden. I do retain the estimate of Mr. Murray, as this is clearly relevant. Riposte97 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Paragraph 5 - Currently reads:
An effort to fully document the children who never returned home from the schools remains ongoing. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission identified 1,953 children, 477 of whom require additional investigation and an additional 1,242 known to have died but whose names are not yet known. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) conducted further review of the records added an additional 471 students to the memorial. This number was expected to climb as additional work was conducted. In total the register contains information about 4,126 children. It contains only the names of students who attended schools covered by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and does not include students who died while attending day schools or other non-IRSSA schools.
I propose cutting this entirely. It has gone through several revisions, but currently it adds very little to the core attempts to estimate/quantify the number of deaths at the schools. It uses confusing POV language - 'never came home' when 'died' is apparently meant, even though never came home != died. It makes reference to some kind of memorial, which is not explained. It makes reference to a 'register' which is similarly not explained. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement should probably have its own paragraph later in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Support changes to paragraphs 1–2, and 3–4 with qualifications (undecided on paragraph 5) – However, the statement "The Bureau of Indian affairs made a policy decision not to return the children's bodies to their families, citing cost, and frequently didn't notify them of their deaths either." should be retained in some form, as it is uncontroversial, well-sourced, and important context. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
You're trying to trim back the information about the genocide and you put genocide in scare quotes in the proposed revision. To start. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose totally Any removal of tuberculosis is a complete whitewash. Knowingly/forcefully sending kids to schools with known pre-existing outbreaks, causing huge numbers of preventable deaths, is probably the biggest single cause of preventable deaths. This is absolutely massive. Children didn't just die of disease they died of *preventable* disease (preventable by the people in charge at the time, with the knowledge possessed at the time). Lots of people died from TB and other diseases in the past. There wouldn't have been anything special about it, except for the fact it was preventable. --Rob (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm well perhaps we can add a new paragraph about tuberculosis - my proposal can be built upon after all. However, we'd need some RS that say the TB deaths were preventable. If you can find that, I’m happy to draft up a new TB paragraph to slot in. Riposte97 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
There isn't any serious scholarly debate. TB is infectious, if you put lots of people together, close to each other, with poor sanitary conditions, and some have TB, others will catch it. The RS's have been prevelent, since at least 1907. In 2021 [Lena Faust, a PhD student at the McGill International TB Centre in Montreal, and Courtney Heffernan, manager of the Tuberculosis Program Evaluation and Research Unit at the University of Alberta reiterated this point here. There's a CBC story about research. There has been a mountain of research, substantial litigation, settlements, and the TRC findings. There's this story of how unpasteurized milk, often produced on site, was the source of TB in some residential schools. Another easily preventable cause. The government and church's have actually acknowledged fault in all of this. I've given a tiny sampling of available sources, based on quick Google searches. Frankly, I don't think any body in Canada, acting in good faith, making the slightest effort to be informed, doesn't know this already. --Rob (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rob Thanks for finding those. Perhaps my good faith can be salvaged by the fact that I am not in Canada. I live in Australia.
Again, I am not opposed to inserting a paragraph about the poor management of TB in the early 20th century. Regarding the sources you have pulled together, the first is very high quality. It seems to lay most of the blame at a lack of public and institutional awareness about TB outbreaks. The second is a little less sound in my eyes. It's appears to be a news story reporting on an op-ed. I don't think I've ever seen that before, and I don't think I approve. The CBC story is reporting on unpublished research, but seems to be pretty good. The milk article relates only to one school, so lets leave that aside for now.
How would you feel about revising paragraph 3/4 to:
The residential school system ran for over 120 years; the last school closed in 1997. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report confirmed it had found records of 3,201 deaths at the schools, mostly from disease. Particularly deadly was tuberculosis, of which there were repeated outbreaks in the early 20th Century. In the close confines of the residential school dormitories, conditions were ideal for the spread of the disease. The Bureau of Indian affairs made a policy decision not to return the children's bodies to their families, citing cost, and frequently didn't notify them of their deaths either. Murray Siclair, who chaired the Commission, speculated that the true number of deaths could be anywhere between 6,000 and 25,000. Some of the students who died at the schools were buried in graveyards on the school grounds, or nearby.
You seem to be going out of your way to imply the TB deaths were just a thing that happened. If the article is to be changed, it should be made to make much clearer how deaths were caused by intentional decisions. I gathered the first few Google hits, we can find more. The links aren't to stellar sources, but reference sources. I don't personally have a copy of the 1907 report on paper, or any of the other government reports, or court cases, so I just post some links to point to their existence. I'd be fine with digging up ever more sources, properly citing the original sources, if you had *any* reliable sources refuting complicity in deaths (not just TB deaths), but you have none. You just have a general desire to downplay it.--Rob (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I’m not really sure where that's coming from. I'm trying to work with you here, not trying to 'downplay' anything - least of all the deaths of children. However, I’m clearly missing something. What is it you want to see in the article? Do you want it to say the TB deaths were negligent? That they were murder? I don't understand what 'complicity' means in this context.
I also want to note that TB seems to be a huge cause of net mortality, but that it's relatively limited in time, compared with the life of the institutions. Is a standalone TB section implying that the gravesites are primarily associated with the TB epidemics of the 1900s-1930s? Riposte97 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add "and schools were often under-resourced and could not effectively prevent or treat outbreaks." or something to that effect? I agree that the weight put on tuberculosis should be appropriate to the time period and severity, but I'm not particularly well-versed in the details of either of those aspects of the issue. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to move ahead, taking the above suggestions on board. If any editors want to expand or tweak the TB parts, I'd welcome them building off the above. Riposte97 (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Riposte97: Do not move ahead. There has been significant opposition to the proposed changes. I suggest you refrain from further altering the article without substantial consensus. If you need further opposes in order to see lack of consensus in favor of your changes, let me add my two cents: I oppose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pbritti I have taken the constructive comments of opposers into account with the edit. Happy to further revise things. Is there anything in particular which you or others find objectionable in what I have added? If we can agree, at least, that it's an improved foundation to what was there before, then we can build off it. Riposte97 (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, Riposte97, I've been at an all-day event. Specifically, I'm very concerned regarding the shortened content about mortality rates, which you removed on the grounds of redundancy. This concern is partially for the sake of maximizing readily accessible information and partially due to the previously raised concerns that removing that content could minimize those relevant details. Minimization of those details, particularly in light of the concerns also previously expressed about sources that promoted misleading narratives denying or downplaying the mortality rates, is something I don't want to support. Thanks for being open to discussing this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No need at all to apologise. Are you referring to the quotes of Dr. Bryce that were formerly in paragraph 3? By my understanding, those comments referred to TB outbreaks in the early 20th century. Perhaps per Rob's comments above we can craft a paragraph integrating those? Riposte97 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Thivierr: In your remarks you focus on the proposed removal/shortening of tuberculosis-related material. What do you make of the proposed refinements to the lead, since neither version refers to tuberculosis? 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Investigation sections
I propose, as a first step, combining these sections under a new heading. Since they in any case seem to just list the various schools where gravesites have been present, there is little utility to keeping them separate imo. I also think this section should kick off with a paragraph explaining that there is an effort to rediscover and redocument gravesites/graveyards which have been lost to history. That paragraph could perhaps also touch on how these efforts massively ramped up in 2021, with renewed media attention generated by a GPR survey at Kamloops. Riposte97 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It might also help to organise the subheadings by province. I will attempt to do that. In the meantime, I am going to remove the unsourced content at the start of the first investigations section and the table - it adds zero. If anyone reverts, please reply to this comment. Riposte97 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Stop making massive changes to this article that weaken the language and narrative around the genocide prior to positive consensus being built. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Editors don't have a right to impose a total prohibition on editing, and then refuse to actually engage in the process they're demanding. You haven't made any comments on the changes other than "no, don't do anything". That's not productive or helpful and dare I say your reversions are actually just becoming disruptive. 5225C (talk • contributions) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@5225C Hardly. the cuts being made violate WP:NPOV by softening description of a genocide. It isn’t disruptive to prevent such POV changes and ask for discussion and consensus building at talk before enacting massive revisions.Simonm223 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No, not "hardly". This article is about gravesites, not a genocide. You've asked for discussion, but you haven't engaged in it. Only Pbritti and I have given substantive comments on Riposte97's proposals. There is no mechanism by which an editor can entirely block changes to an article or demand that every change from an arbitrarily chosen version require explicit consensus. That's a claim at WP:OWNership. Either the editors who have problems with the cleanup start actually engaging with the discussions they've asked Riposte97 to start, or we progress to dispute resolution. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Frankly I find the extent of Riposte's changes overwhelming and don't have sufficient time to devote to just one article to go through thousands of bites of cuts rapidly. The reason for the urgency to cut seems unclear. That is why I want Riposte to bring up these revisions in an orderly manner so they can be properly reviewed. Finally this article is about gravesites that are material evidence of a genocide so your claims that this article is not about genocide are incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
So far, I have only removed a paragraph with zero citations and a table, the information in which is repeated elsewhere. Reverting changes because you don't have time to properly review them is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If you don't have the capacity/desire to familiarise yourself and weigh in on the proposed changes, then you probably ought not to be reverting them. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have now arranged this section by province/territory. The next step is to try to rationalise the entries using the latest RS. I will also try to draft a header paragraph which lays out the relevant context. Riposte97 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: It is a racist and colonialist term that was used in the legislation that set up the school system and therefore it persists in the historiography. It is in fact considered extremely racist in Canada. People here gasped when I mentioned the French and Indian War once. (turns out that that's the American name, and the name of the war in Canada is something else). Since this is about the racist school system with the racist name, we are probably stuck with it in the title, but the IP is correct. The commonname in Canada is "Indigenous". We can go full RfC on this if necessary, but let's not do that. I am asking you to take another look at this. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but there are many colonial terms that are used as common names in Wikipedia and it's not really my call to change them. You're more than welcome to start a WP:RM. M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
M.Bitton I see your point but I am not sure you see mine. The commonname shouldn't be something that will get you punched. And is the OP even talking about the title of the article? I've been removing it from the body. In any event, I thank you for the second look. And if you are reading the request as applying to the article title you are probably right that there should be an RM. Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: the edit request wasn't clear and I assumed that they are referring to both (they are connected after all). As for the common names, it's not unusual for some people to take offence at some of them and if they feel strongly about them, then RM is probably the best way forward. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
not really worried about the title as it is somewhat defensible given the administrative history. Or more accurately I am more worried about other things. Thanks for looking. Elinruby (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Aha the instances of the word "Indian" have gone from zero to 87 in the past few weeks. This has been managed by removing Indigenous names and reorganizing the article as a list of schools for which the colonial name is used. And saying "Bureau of Indian Affairs" as often as possible. Go team Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I have added the standard note we use across all these articles.... We got to make sure researchers can actually research the topic. Moxy🍁 00:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If this happened in 2014 it was not a reaction to the events of June 2021 Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC) No objection to the point if its relevance is demonstrated and its reference is improved. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I have left this paragraph of the lede alone for now, but the following seems pov: Given that most of them were established by Christian missionaries with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity, schools often had nearby mission churches with community cemeteries. Students were often buried in these cemeteries rather than being sent back to their home communities, since the school was expected by the Department of Indian Affairs to keep costs as low as possible.
The part about costs is true and can be sourced, but the sentence before it seems to seek to excuse these schools for having cemeteries, which is a frequent point made in the debate Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
because, as has been frequently said, no school should need a cemetery. Did the school you attended have one? That is why it would need an excuse. As for truth, I dunno. Have not seen this point made in sources. If there is a church on school grounds in Kamloops, I am not aware of it. Report back with your findings ;) WP:ONUS applies. I will wait. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Mine didn't because it was in the middle of the town, but I know of many schools in the area whose church grounds include(d) a cemetery (Australia). It's reasonably common in rural areas where a church community also established a school. I'll have a look into whether this was the case in Canada and let you know. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Having done 20 odd minutes of Googling, the only attempt at a historical explanation I've found is the following: "Deaths at the schools meant that they often needed to have cemeteries, and these are often a primary focus of geophysical surveys. However, finding them and even acknowledging the existence of such cemeteries can be problematic. Cemeteries at residential schools would be expected in this era of higher child mortality and greater incidence of epidemics." (from https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1914). So whether the lead is true or not, nobody seems to make much of a comment on, so this is probably the better explanation to go with. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Although that being said, if you Ctrl+F your way through the article you can find numerous instances of unmarked graves in community cemeteries, which is possibly what that lead sentence intended to summarise. I would reword it to reflect the content in the article, so something like "In some cases, students were buried in community cemeteries, where records and grave markers either were not established or have since been lost." 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, perhaps more importantly is that I don't see that the claim that schools often had nearby mission churches with community cemeteries is referenced. While we don't need references in the lead, they same material should be covered in the body with references and I don't see that is the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. TarnishedPathtalk05:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Since we are all here, "An unknown number" could be understood as "zero" and the Background section says Murray Sinclair, who chaired the Commission, speculated that the true number of deaths could be anywhere between 6,000 and 25,000.[1]Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Although "unknown number" is in the lede, it does have two sources, which respectively give the bare minimum number and an estimate from the judge who spent six years investigating this. Pending further refinement of the article it would probably be a good first step to change "An unknown number" to "Thousands" Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The RS don't say that though. Although this does not preclude the possibility that I am also reading too much into it.
But: The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission included a list of ~4100 names of dead children who were documented in the archival records, along with the name of the school where they did and their tribal afficiation. The two sources in the lede both predate the 2016 release of that report (2016) although the article has to have been written after late June 2021. One says At least 6,000 aboriginal children died while in the residential school system, says Justice Murray Sinclair, the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Sinclair, who has been tasked with studying the legacy of the residential schools, says that the figure is just an estimate and is likely much higher.
The other says approximately 3,200 residential school students died of malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions. Justice Murray Sinclair argued that this number is likely higher, perhaps 5 to 10 times as much; however, due to poor burial records, the commission could not report a more accurate number.
Both those sources are RS, just inexplicably old. The Background section contains the unreferenced statement that approximately 3,200 residential school students died of malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions. Justice Murray Sinclair argued that this number is likely higher, perhaps 5 to 10 times as much; however, due to poor burial records, the commission could not report a more accurate number.Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The background section should have the source added then and I would support changing the lede wording from "An unknown number of ..." to be "Upwards of 3,200 ...". TarnishedPathtalk07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I can do that, then maybe update the sources later? This is my first pass through since the article was rewritten. For purposes of going forward, I am going to move the references into the body as you suggest. They are still eight years old, but we can get to that later. The Truth and Reconciliation report is going to be primary but there have to be thousands of more recent RS and probably hundreds of peer-reviewed sources for the number of names on that list, which is online, btw. Come to think of it it may still be used as a reference if not all of the instances of it were deleted. Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
wait though, the deaths in the sources are not just those from malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions so I think I should remove that, especially since some of the malnourishment was deliberate (they did a studies on the effects of malnutrition using the children at some schools as test subjects). But it there isn't one it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a section on causes of death. And it is true that at afaik all of the schools, tuberculosis was a huge factor in the mortality rate. Something to come back to along with better numbers.
Oh wait. The unsourced statement is copy-pasted from the second source? Sigh. Ok, I got this. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)<= my cut and paste error. I am making edits that basically implement the above discussion however, remove PoV and correct errors of fact. Added a ref note about what "Canada" was at the time. Have also discovered that "Department of Indian Affairs" was not the name of the agency until very late in the 19th-century. Ignoring that for now, but that whole attribution section needs rewording if only for readability. Pending a better idea, in discussions here, I am going to say "government of Canada" but that is somewhat wrong. Although I may be overthinking again. I am still in the Background section. Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Removed unsourced estimate of total unmarked graves
To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children.[citation needed] I am not saying there isn't a source out there for this, but I do not recall ever seeing one, and considering that to arrive at the number, you would have to sum up different estimates by different professionals in different terrains it does not seem like something a professional would do. If there is in fact a source for this down the page, open to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the sources (Hopper) does this sort of adding, but arrives at a different number. Maybe the number is updated from that. This is still an open question Elinruby (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not in article body
Most cemeteries were unregistered, and as such the locations of many burial sites of residential school children have been lost. only instance of "register" in the article body that is about a cemetery is Battleford Saskatchewan Elinruby (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
terminology quibble: but was it the Canadian government or the British government in say 1853?
or is the timeline such that it doesn't matter?
Also -- just asking you as a random Canadian: weren't there French schools? I seem to remember an organization in St-Boniface that thought so. [6]. They seem like a serious if ill-funded organization. If you don't know, that's fine, appreciate the help, thanks for clearing up the point that you cleared up. This matters to the extent that I could not find a source for the claim that the schools were in operation for 120 years, but it probably depends on what we are calling "the schools"? In other words, very little, but it would be nice to nail it down if somebody knows. As always, thanks.Elinruby (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been the British government. The idea of residential schools emerged in the 1840s, in the Province of Canada. I don't have the cites for it, but if you check out the article on Egerton Ryerson, there's a good summary of how the system started: Egerton_Ryerson#Ryerson_and_residential_schools. It expanded gradually from there, under the administration of the Province of Canada government. With Confederation in 1867, the federal government had control over relations with Indigenous peoples, and took over the residential school system, which expanded into western Canada. I think that's where the figure for 120 years comes from: ~1845 + 120 = ~1965. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
OK. I am pretty darn sure you know more about the enabling legislation than I do, but for now this is just a wording quibble and if you tell me it is usual to refer to the "government of Canada" despite whether all of Canada was quite certain it wanted to be governed, I certainly believe you. If I can find a source for that 120 years, I at least see where it is coming from and don't mind it going back in. If sourced. This isn't about responsibility, btw. I realize that is all adjudicated and complied with, but not everybody talking at the moment seems to do so. I still have doubts about when it was that the French Jesuit schools began to be residential, but that would not be the same "system" anyway, eh, and is even more tenuously Canadian. So I am good with that as long as it has a source. I will look at the Ryerson article.
I checked the cite for the French school. The fact that it operated in French in Manitoba doesn't take it out of the category of residential school. If it was funded by the federal government under the Indian Act, it would have been a residential school for the purposes of the discussion, I would think.
What happened with Confederation is that statutes of the former BNA colonies (like the Province of Canada) could come under federal jurisdiction, if the subject matter of the colonial statute was now within the matters assigned to the federal Parliament. Since Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians" (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24)), all of the statutes of the Province of Canada dealing with Indigenous peoples passed to federal jurisdiction (same with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). The provinces didn't have any input into the issue after 1867. The origins of residential schools appear to have been with the Province of Canada in the mid-1840s, but then passed to federal jurisdiction after 1867. That's where the ~120 years comes from, starting in the mid-1840s.
With respect to "government of Canada", the expansion of federal jurisdiction to Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory in 1870, was controversial - hence the Red River Resistance. However, it happened. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)is what it is called in
right right, thank you for looking into that. Yeah Louis Riel lost. My fundamental question is COMMONNAME and if that is what they call it in academic sources, then that is what we should use. I am going to move down the page and look for sourcing problems now. That Saint Boniface link looks like it might be a good source of images, but they do have a copyright notice up. Some of the archives are pretty early though, do you know Canadian copyright law? Elinruby (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
schools often had nearby mission where possible graves of hundreds of Indigenous people were discovered.[1]
the word "often" does not appear in source at all
the string "mission" only appears in the word "commission"
there are several mentions of graves, but all in the context of discovering them.
To be clear this source is fine as far as it goes. It just does not support the statement in front of it. My issues with the statement in front of it revolve around "often" and why this is in the lede in the first place. But the statement itself might be accurate if reworded. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
So this post is about the word "often" and "missions"? We don't have sources claiming they all had burial sites because they didn't..... as for the word mission this is simply a common term used in Canada. Moxy🍁 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) PS: It's not that I object to the word "mission", it's that nothing resembling the statement containing it is found in the source, afaict Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
or wh
If it is is so blanged obvious then why does it need to be spelled out at all? In the lede? Because that is all a PoV pusher cares about, is the lede, because that is what matters for SEO. Or at least that is one possible theory. I personally don't get why this article keeps getting messed with. But it does. So in keeping with the minimization of the mortality rate, of course there is a cemetery and of course everyone died of TB at the time no matter what anyway.Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
From the article about the residential school system:
The 1906 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, submitted by chief medical officer Peter Bryce, highlighted that the "Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times".[2]: 97–98 [3]: 275 Among the list of causes he noted the infectious disease of tuberculosis and the role residential schools played in spreading the disease by way of poor ventilation and medical screening.[2]: 97–98 [3]: 275–276
Death rates per 1,000 students in residential schools (1869–1965)
In 1907, Bryce reported on the conditions of Manitoba and North-West residential schools: "we have created a situation so dangerous to health that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse than they have been shown statistically to be."[4]: 18 In 1909, Bryce reported that, between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in western Canada ranged from 30 to 60 per cent over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30 to 60 per cent of students had died, or 6 to 12 per cent per annum).[5] These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he said that mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis.[2][6][7] At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease, and this exacerbated the impact of the illness. Streptomycin, the first effective treatment, was not introduced until 1943.[8]: 381
I am not overly fussed about this either way, but that is what I was thinking. Not sure I understand the conversation we are having, but it isn't that I don't see the source. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Also there seems to currently seems to be some repetition in the first paragraph of the lede. Since it looks like you are working on that section I am going to leave you to it for now and go work on the source discussions at RSN. Would like to talk about the Church fires and and Reactions sections at some point. Not sure they are due. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Also this But am I misreading the references on the wiki article? Nowhere in the Aleteia article at.is "St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church in Indian Brook, Nova Scotia". Lostsandwich (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
seems like a worthy question, but I can only see that source on my phone, which I am not on right now, so since you offer it would be great if you could verify that. If not it is something I am trying to get back to on Chrome. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to let others respond... as I have stated before I simply don't understand the majority of your posts. Are these AI generated or a translator used? Moxy🍁 21:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
yes he just changed the source for the Nova Scotia claim. I no longer need you to double check that it failed verification, thanks anyway. As for the rest of what you said: I am not certain that you grasp the entire issue yet. But the point is moot, the source does fail verification and was removed. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
But since we are here, it seems like you really want the article to say that the House of Commons passed a resolution urging the government to take action or something. The House of Commons is the legislative branch of government. (?) Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I see Moxy has provided a cite for the Department of Indian Affairs in the lead. From the earlier edit note, I think Elinruby was also asking about the name of the federal agency. It's a bit complicated.
Over the course of a century, it went over a number of names. Under the Indian Act of 1876, the first federal legislation on the topic continued the office of "Superintendent of Indian Affairs", with a Deputy Superintendent. There doesn't appear to have been a Department of Indian Affairs at that time. By the Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, there was a Department of Indian Affairs. At some time between then and the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, Indian Affairs got rolled into the Department of Citizenship, but then at some later point it re-emerged as a separate Department. By 1970, it was called the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Revised Statutes of Canada 1970; Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, as originally proclaimed). By 2019, it got re-named to Department of Indigenous Services.
Given all those name changes, I think for the purposes of this article, it is best to refer throughout to the "Department of Indian Affairs", since that's the name it was generally known as, in relation to the residential schools. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Good enough, at least for me. I really just want to know the COMMONNAME. There is a separate issue with whole bunches of gratuitous uses of "Indian" but let's prioritize the misrepresented sources right now. The article was just disastrously re-written as I guess you may have gathered. Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the repetition of "funded by" in the lede here: The Canadian Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous children directed and funded by the Department of Indian Affairs.[2] Administered by various Christian churches and funded by the Canadian government from 1828 to 1997 Canadian Indian residential school system attempted to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture but based on the above section it was not the Department of Indian Affairs for the entire 1828-1997 period. Despite my dislike of the word "Indian" in the agency name, which is now regarded as racist, I am open to the argument that it was historically the COMMONNAME. I would like to improve this awkward bit of writing however, and the only way I currently see of doing this would be The Canadian Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous children administered by various Christian churches and funded by the Canadian government from 1828 to 1997 Canadian, which attempted to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Posting here since some people seem to want to preserve the mention of the agency name. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
failed verification
The residential school system was established by Christian missionaries with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity,[1]
What the source says is: "Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society." The statement from Wikipedia (above) is a paraphrase. So the question is to what extent is it unfaithful to the original. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Missionaries are mentioned twice. One of those times it even says that the first schools were founded by French missionaries. But there was an agreement elsewhere on this page that the French system is a different animal and the source says the French wanted to feed them not convert them. I'm not saying I necessarily believe that but that is what the source says. So it does not support the statement that other missionaries founded the system "with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity." I am also pretty sure that the government was more interested in assimilation than conversion.
To be clear, this source is fine as far as it goes. It just does not support the statement in front of it. My issues with the statement in front of it: Pretty sure from the conversation we just had in the other section that the government founded the school system. "Express purpose" might be sourceable for the government, perhaps. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Religion was a major part of assimilating Indigenous peoples on both sides of the border.... It's why it's referred to as a cultural genocide.[8] The French wanted to free them from what.... their families? basic infoMoxy🍁 23:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
That reaction is why I explicitly said I'm not saying I necessarily believe that but that is what the source says. What the source does however say is: The first residential facilities were developed in New France by Catholic missionaries to provide care and schooling. Please remember that we are talking about what the source says not what I personally believe, which is that schools were a rather cynical tactic whose goal was assimilation and were gleefully perpetuated when the system proved lethal. You seem to think I want to deny that there was anything wrong with the schools, which is far from the case, and makes it hard to discuss things with you. So let's start over. I actually believe that "cultural genocide" is a euphemism in the Canadian context. Please stop trying to convince me of the genocidal intent. I am already there, and it's annoying.
I just think that an article that gets messed with as much as this one does, on the regular, should at least *try* to be properly cited to begin with. The statement is not in the source provided. I am ok with changes to either the statement or the source provided. Maybe you could scan the article history, that might help also. Most of this has been happening in edit summaries.Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
To me the source is clear... quote= "The purpose of residential schools was to educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society......The government therefore collaborated with Christian missionaries to encourage religious conversion..." Perhaps the actual encyclopedia page would help? Moxy🍁 23:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
where in the source does it say The residential school system was established by Christian missionaries with the express purpose of converting Indigenous children to Christianity?
I feel like the Wikipedia integrity defenders need to untangle the current circular firing squad. I am going to go do something else for a while. Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you not see the source. Quote = "Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society" Moxy🍁 11:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you really need it explained to you that this is not what the source says? "Christian churches and the Canadian government" is not "Christian missionaries" and what the source says about "Christian missionaries" is not what the source is being used to prove Elinruby (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok so best we dumb down the wording so all understand. Will give it a go in a bit. Moxy🍁 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I could be offended by that if I tried hard enough. A missionary order is not the same thing as "the Catholic church" exactly, and the only way to be accurate is to be accurate, Moxy. And to be clear, I am not asking you to do anything. Feel free to refrain. If you want to help with the article then please, help with the article and stop calling me stupid. I would deeply appreciate that. Anything that goes on the talk page will eventually get addressed by me unless someone else gets it first, so don't do it out of a sense of obligation. Right now I am adding and checking sources. As is usually the pattern, the carnage is not nearly as bad when you get out of the lede. It looks like key points got dropped as irrelevant though. But yes, I do generally expect sources to support the statement in front of them. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
questioned text
Writer Robert Jago identified religion as a point of full separation between indigenous and Canadian society, holding that "[i]t is a legitimate debate for First Nations to talk about removing Catholic churches from [indigenous] territories".[1] Indigenous leaders, including Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band, as well as the prime minister and provincial officials condemned the suspected arsons.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Jago does appear to have some sort of claim to notability. I am not sure how much of one and would describe myself as fairly indifferent to the question. Possibly this is due for the Reactions section. It was in the church fires section however and I took it ouk because of all the UNDUE there is in that section already. Side note: nobody cares about these reactions, yanno. Elinruby (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Jago is an amongst the most published Native writers active. His opinion can be relevant when attribute to an and present in a secondary reliable source. Your "side note" is baffling. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
great source, does not say what it is purported to say however
Many cemeteries were unregistered, and as such the locations of many burial sites of residential school children have been lost.[2]
Clarifying since I am apparently not working alone here: deaths are discussed on page 8, but nothing about cemeteries or graves and definitely not grave markers. I found mention elsewhere of rotted wooded crosses at one school though, and will make sure to include that in the section for that school the next time I see it again. If there is more than one mention after we do some updating, no objection to this returning to lede if properly supported in the body etc Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Will give you 24hrs to read the report before fixinv the page number..... This is the basic type of knowledge you need to know before editing these articles. Let me know when you're done. Moxy🍁 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the statement to the lead..... literally explains what the article is about. Moxy🍁 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference Cecco-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called for "the ongoing identification, documentation, maintenance, commemoration, and protection of residential school cemeteries or other sites at which residential school children were buried."<ref name="TRCVolume4"> Yes this is the official record. Primary source but a very good one. However a page number really is needed. This isn't a 6-page journal article. It probably does say that somewhere in there for the record, but I am not supposed to have to guess about that Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, this removal is confusing. That sourced statement explains how residential schools improperly handled burying and recording the identities of Indigenous students. My assumption is that you're reading that as somehow a justification of the missing gravesites. It, in fact, does the opposite: it indicates that weaponized incompetence and indifference led to these many unmarked graves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the placement of my comment, Moxy. I very obviously clicked the wrong section. As a heads up to anyone watching this page, there was a change in scope at 2021 Canadian church burnings, a related article. See this talk page section over there for the details, but it was decided to trim the article to exclusively fires, rather than also including acts of destructive protest against churches related to the residential schools. TL;DR: there might be some content that was deleted there being filtered up to the reactions section here, but I don't see that as a priority. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Dont have that page on my watchlist.... looks like a mess.... going to steer clear of that till we have academic publications. Moxy🍁 02:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The article seems silent on the misleading nature of the initial media coverage that has since been walked back.
In 2021, the media announced the discovery of "mass graves" at residential schools based on ground-penetrating radar. Like the article says, some unmarked graves were found (some of which were known to exist, but just unmarked), but the initial media narrative was that thousands of children were found in mass pit graves. Some of the underground anomalies then turned out not to be bodies at all. A lot of "denialism" is fuelled by people denying this initial mischaracterization of the graves rather than denying that Residential Schools were terrible. And this article does a good job of stating accurately that they are "unmarked graves." I think the article is just incomplete without a discussion of how the narrative has been walked back - there wasn't a firestorm in 2021 because we were told there were unmarked graveyards at Residential Schools, there was one because we were told there were "mass graves"! I'd be happy to offer sources, but also this page seems contentious, so I wanted to ask for thoughts before editing. 2605:8D80:560:3AA1:79E7:45E3:629F:ADD (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that describes this transition in narrative? I have seen similar statements in opinion pieces written for sources that are generally not reliable, but have yet to see RS coverage of this narrative. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's used in the title of the article to refer to the WP:COMMONNAME. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
