Talk:St. Joseph's Indian School/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about St. Joseph's Indian School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Need more sourced content on culture
There was considerable discussion earlier on this page about a book that told about the opinions of 10 former women students at St. Joseph's, who complained about not being supported as Lakota women. Is sourced content from the book going to be added to this article? Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I did a fast read of that paper and couldn't come up with anything from that. A slower read (which I plan to do) might fix that. And unless I'm wrong (which I could be) ...The first challenge is the focus of the study which was impacts in general from attendance at such schools. The next challenge is that only 6 of the 10 went to St. Josephs and they never really said which or which experiences were from St. Josephs. I think that it was like almost half way through the paper before St. Josephs was even mentioned. BTW I did not see dates but inferred that they probably attended in the 70's. If you want to give it a try that would be cool. Also see my invitation to ARoseWolf above. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Parkwells: I did some good pullquotes above from this source: THE BOARDING SCHOOL LEGACY: TEN CONTEMPORARY LAKOTA WOMEN TELL THEIR STORIES by Kathie Marie Bowker. They're in green above. It has excellent material. Page numbers I gave above are for the electronic/PDF pages, not the print ones. North keeps insisting it's not there. Go see for yourself. Just do a page search and it all comes up. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- CorbieVreccan - thanks for the notice. I've been working on related material at articles Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls and Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City to get a better understanding of how all this fits together. Will get back to this. Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is the WorldCat page for the work: The boarding school legacy : ten contemporary Lakota women tell their stories. So, we can use it. I'll repost the pull quote from above here. I'll change the page numbers to those in the print copy:
- The source has plenty of content on St. Joseph's. The author attended St. Joseph's. While some remembered individual nuns who had been supportive and kind, all "stressed that they recalled a lot of abuse by the nuns"(p.58 hardcopy). Here's an interesting quote:
The women who attended St. Josephs Indian School reported that they could not tell their parents of the abuse in letters because all letters were written for them. They stated that when they wrote letters home they were required to copy text from a classroom blackboard. These letters contained generic phrases and this is what was mailed home to parents. This explains why parents thought their students were doing fine at the boarding school, as their letters stated they were. (p.62 hardcopy)
The women were asked how they survived the boarding school in terms of being a child and taken away from their families. All of the women responded with talk of family kinships. Those women who had older siblings attending boarding school had someone to fall back on. (p.64 hardcopy)
There are more. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- What's emerging is I think that that is an area than needs expansion and has some sourcing even if it will take a little more work to absorb and use.North8000 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- We have to allow time for information to be absorbed and processed. That is not to say it is an indefinite time but enough time should be granted. There are, obviously, some things we will never agree on. That does not mean that the information doesn't belong in the article or that it can not be added. There is information that I do not agree belongs in the article now but it is there and has been allowed to remain because we either have gained consensus for it or have gained no consensus and I refuse to remove something unless consensus is gained for removal. This is why I found removal of the Landrum information to be both against long-standing Wikipedia policy and offensive, though I stop well short of calling it intentional. The Wikipedia policy has been provided by which Landrum's Master's degree thesis paper that is published and located at the University of South Dakota Library is admissible and acceptable as a proper source. Based on policy, it should have not been removed until consensus was gained but even consensus can not go against Wikipedia policy so because it is supported by policy even consensus can not remove it. If we are ever to have hopes of coming to some kind of agreement on creating the best and most accurate article here then we must include as much sourced material as we can to paint the overall picture. St. Joseph's school has been an establishment since 1927. That covers a long period of time. Information from every time period is relevant. Both negative and positive information is relevant. The stories of former students are as relevant as those of current students and both are as relevant as former and current staff. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to keep going around about the material which cited Landrum, but IMO "three times over " it had to be taken out and I concur with the removal. Once because, as the above study shows, the material never came from Landrum. Second that being absolutely inaccessible means it fails WP:VER and also due to being a masters paper which doesn't meet the exceptions it also fails [[WP:ver] a second time. But moving on. When I made my comment above I was mostly thinking about the in-school experience and treatment from 1927 through near-modern times. There are lots of sources about modern times (let's say the last 10 or 15 years) and things look pretty good there although there are editors here who have criticized certain aspects of that. So I guess I was talking about the experience, treatment and methods there 1927 - ~2005. The source that Corbie used to include the quote from the one person had those (from the numbers I'm guessing he attended in the late 50's through mid 60's. After that the source talks about the schools from late 1800's and sort of conflates that with more recent ones. The other source that we have is the "10 women" thesis. I did a quick read and due to certain previously described issues it was hard to do a good job of getting anything out of it. But it's the one I had in mind when I said "it will take a little more work to absorb and use" because with one or two thorough reads of it might come up with encyclopedic additions regarding this school. From the math it appears they attended in the 1960's or 1970's. Right now I think that those are the only two sources we have on that and I volunteer to work on the second one. But you just sitting back and saying "somebody should" and then giving those putative "somebody" volutteers a deadline doesn't cut it. Working within the limitations of your declared COI you can certainly look for more sources about this school and note them here or, as I offered before, draft some sourced additions about this school on the talk page and I'd be happy to put them in and such fully complies with Wikipedia's COI rules. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I simply pointed out, without naming you or criticizing you, that the time frame can not be indefinite, for anyone. It really doesn't matter what you feel will "cut it" or not. You have so candidly pointed out that feelings aren't Wikipedia policy. It also doesn't matter what you think about the Landrum source. Wikipedia policy, as pointed out by Corbie, does allow it despite your interpretation of guidelines. Your interpretation does not equal consensus nor does it equal policy either. For you to refuse to show any compassion whatsoever and make assumptions as to what I am and am not doing in this moment is, quite frankly, disgusting. You have no clue anything about me personally so I think its best to keep it on the content of the article. I haven't attacked you at any moment in our conversations, even when we disagreed. I have strived to find common ground with you though you dispute most of anything said based on your interpretations alone. Sources have been offered to everyone here. I don't feel it necessary to rehash them for you or anyone else because I feel everyone here is quite capable of reading through this talk page and finding them again if they wanted to. As far as additional sources go, I am looking for those not already mentioned by IG, Corbie or Parkwells but this isn't my only project nor is it my chief concern at the moment. One of the sources was updated because I am looking and found an archived copy of it. If your intention was to find common ground then personal attacks is probably not the best way to handle that. I'll borrow a page for your book. Thank you, sincerely. --ARoseWolf 22:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, I pretty much disagree with most of the things in your post but lets move on. I did have a comment which might be helpful; I think that you misread the situation here. "Common ground" implies some clash of agendas. My only one is to make an accurate informative article. If yours is different than that then maybe there is a clash but otherwise not. My main point is that if you have any free time you should use it to improve the article rather than using to lecture the other people who are volunteering their time to edit. Regardless, I wish you the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that is your desire then let me put this forward to you:
- You keep throwing up WP:V for why the Landrum source can't be used. Under WP:V there is a section on Accessibility which you can view yourself as WP:SOURCEACCESS but I will quote here for convenience,
"Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf."
When one couples that with WP:INDICATEAVAIL which states,"If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context."
, one can start to formulate how the source, though not fully available is still relevant and can be used. The fact that it was not originally included as the source of the statement at the time it was included is irrelevant. Someone may have read the thesis at a later date and concluded that the statement was attributable to Landrum. The fact that you can't access the source does not preclude it. In the quote above, "reliable" directs you to WP:V. In the case of Landrum, the OCLC number was provided which meets the criteria for availability and since a print-only source is available through a library it also meets the criteria for accessibility which is a sub section of WP:V. Therefore, the notion that it fails WP:V is unfounded and can not be the basis for why the information should be excluded. --ARoseWolf 12:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)- Regarding the "1 of the three reasons" There was an agglomeration of unsourced material built up over time which somebody removed as unsourced and then someone just restored the whole bundle and cited the Landrum student paper. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Has anyone asked Cynthia Landrum to make the source available online? oncamera (talk page) 13:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the "1 of the three reasons" There was an agglomeration of unsourced material built up over time which somebody removed as unsourced and then someone just restored the whole bundle and cited the Landrum student paper. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, I pretty much disagree with most of the things in your post but lets move on. I did have a comment which might be helpful; I think that you misread the situation here. "Common ground" implies some clash of agendas. My only one is to make an accurate informative article. If yours is different than that then maybe there is a clash but otherwise not. My main point is that if you have any free time you should use it to improve the article rather than using to lecture the other people who are volunteering their time to edit. Regardless, I wish you the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I simply pointed out, without naming you or criticizing you, that the time frame can not be indefinite, for anyone. It really doesn't matter what you feel will "cut it" or not. You have so candidly pointed out that feelings aren't Wikipedia policy. It also doesn't matter what you think about the Landrum source. Wikipedia policy, as pointed out by Corbie, does allow it despite your interpretation of guidelines. Your interpretation does not equal consensus nor does it equal policy either. For you to refuse to show any compassion whatsoever and make assumptions as to what I am and am not doing in this moment is, quite frankly, disgusting. You have no clue anything about me personally so I think its best to keep it on the content of the article. I haven't attacked you at any moment in our conversations, even when we disagreed. I have strived to find common ground with you though you dispute most of anything said based on your interpretations alone. Sources have been offered to everyone here. I don't feel it necessary to rehash them for you or anyone else because I feel everyone here is quite capable of reading through this talk page and finding them again if they wanted to. As far as additional sources go, I am looking for those not already mentioned by IG, Corbie or Parkwells but this isn't my only project nor is it my chief concern at the moment. One of the sources was updated because I am looking and found an archived copy of it. If your intention was to find common ground then personal attacks is probably not the best way to handle that. I'll borrow a page for your book. Thank you, sincerely. --ARoseWolf 22:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to keep going around about the material which cited Landrum, but IMO "three times over " it had to be taken out and I concur with the removal. Once because, as the above study shows, the material never came from Landrum. Second that being absolutely inaccessible means it fails WP:VER and also due to being a masters paper which doesn't meet the exceptions it also fails [[WP:ver] a second time. But moving on. When I made my comment above I was mostly thinking about the in-school experience and treatment from 1927 through near-modern times. There are lots of sources about modern times (let's say the last 10 or 15 years) and things look pretty good there although there are editors here who have criticized certain aspects of that. So I guess I was talking about the experience, treatment and methods there 1927 - ~2005. The source that Corbie used to include the quote from the one person had those (from the numbers I'm guessing he attended in the late 50's through mid 60's. After that the source talks about the schools from late 1800's and sort of conflates that with more recent ones. The other source that we have is the "10 women" thesis. I did a quick read and due to certain previously described issues it was hard to do a good job of getting anything out of it. But it's the one I had in mind when I said "it will take a little more work to absorb and use" because with one or two thorough reads of it might come up with encyclopedic additions regarding this school. From the math it appears they attended in the 1960's or 1970's. Right now I think that those are the only two sources we have on that and I volunteer to work on the second one. But you just sitting back and saying "somebody should" and then giving those putative "somebody" volutteers a deadline doesn't cut it. Working within the limitations of your declared COI you can certainly look for more sources about this school and note them here or, as I offered before, draft some sourced additions about this school on the talk page and I'd be happy to put them in and such fully complies with Wikipedia's COI rules. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- We have to allow time for information to be absorbed and processed. That is not to say it is an indefinite time but enough time should be granted. There are, obviously, some things we will never agree on. That does not mean that the information doesn't belong in the article or that it can not be added. There is information that I do not agree belongs in the article now but it is there and has been allowed to remain because we either have gained consensus for it or have gained no consensus and I refuse to remove something unless consensus is gained for removal. This is why I found removal of the Landrum information to be both against long-standing Wikipedia policy and offensive, though I stop well short of calling it intentional. The Wikipedia policy has been provided by which Landrum's Master's degree thesis paper that is published and located at the University of South Dakota Library is admissible and acceptable as a proper source. Based on policy, it should have not been removed until consensus was gained but even consensus can not go against Wikipedia policy so because it is supported by policy even consensus can not remove it. If we are ever to have hopes of coming to some kind of agreement on creating the best and most accurate article here then we must include as much sourced material as we can to paint the overall picture. St. Joseph's school has been an establishment since 1927. That covers a long period of time. Information from every time period is relevant. Both negative and positive information is relevant. The stories of former students are as relevant as those of current students and both are as relevant as former and current staff. --ARoseWolf 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Time to get back to article?
Maybe we can also start to propose some passages about St. Joseph's on this Talk page, to get more content in this article, rather than arguing about sources.Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Unreliable sources
Added here: "Huffington Post Contributors" are red, generally unreliable, in WP:RSP. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note that article has been cited in published journals, if it's good enough for these, why not here? oncamera (talk page) 22:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- A Change in South Dakota’s Child Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations: An Equal Protection Violations?, American Indian Law Journal
- Naming Violence in United States Colonialism, Journal of Social History
- Oncamera, no indication of peer review for those journals. Are these articles indexed? DOI? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- A Change in South Dakota’s Child Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations: An Equal Protection Violations? The peer review process for this journal
- Naming Violence in United States Colonialism https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shy086
- There are the answers to your queries oncamera (talk page) 23:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- LOL, I suppose that a bunch of students reviewing fellow students is, grammatically, peer review, but is it review by others who are experts in the same field?
- I see you didn't answer regarding peer review at the Journal of Social History, nor a DOI for the AILJ article, so we'll take that as a "no". And... AILJ is highly involved in social justice advocacy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Journal of Social History is published by Oxford University Press that notes it's a peer reviewed journal per their submission guidelines. The Journal of Social History is a quarterly journal founded in 1967 by Peter Stearns. As a top-ranked journal in the field of social history, it is widely recognized for its high-quality and innovative scholarship and has from its beginnings served as a catalyst for many of the most important developments in the history profession as a whole." That source seems to meet your standard of review by others who are experts in the same field. Cheers, oncamera (talk page) 23:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23 I have replaced the Huffington Post references and added additional information that was missing from the article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. oncamera (talk page) 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oncamera - Thank you for your work in researching the journals and finding related articles. Not all Huff Post contributors are unreliable - Woodard was relying on court documents for some of her material. And because a journal supports social justice advocacy, does not mean it cannot publish factual, accurate articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The AILJ is prepared with oversight by Seattle University Law School faculty and practitioners. There are only two journals in North America dedicated to Indian law, although the field has been developing rapidly since the mid-20th century at least.Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oncamera - Thank you for your work in researching the journals and finding related articles. Not all Huff Post contributors are unreliable - Woodard was relying on court documents for some of her material. And because a journal supports social justice advocacy, does not mean it cannot publish factual, accurate articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
History and sourcing analysis of the second paragraph in the history section
A quick look indicates that such an review would be useful so I'll try to build one.
Circa today this paragraph reads: "Cynthia Landrum of the University of South Dakota wrote in 1995 that Native American children, primarily from the Lakota and related Sioux reservations, were removed from their families by St Joseph's staff and housed in dormitories on campus overseen by the priests. She wrote that, like at other residential schools, the priests were directed to assimilate these Native American children into the majority United States culture, forcing them to speak English and practice Catholicism."
And analyzing it with respect to these assertions:
- That it was originally an assimilation school
- That the students were forced to speak English (although it's unclear what that means beyond the teaching being done and about English)
- Were removed from their families by St Joseph's staff (which implies forcible removal but it's unclear what that actually means)
- That Cynthia Landrum wrote what is in the current paragraph
The beginnings of these were in a July 2016 edit by editor Parkewells which added: "The school was originally directed to assimilate Native American children to the majority United States culture, influenced by European traditions. They were encouraged (or forced) to speak English and to practice Catholicism." It was added unsourced.
It was deleted by Historian1868 December 2018 as being inflammatory unreferenced statements
It was the restored by CorbieVreccan adding & citing the Landrum thesis as a reference.
There was then a group of 4 edits (2 by CorbieVreccan)where diffs are not viewable due to some suppression by special admin or oversight tools but it appears that CorbieVreccan was the one who changed "encouraged (or forced)" to "encouraged and forced"
In September 2020 Actio changed it back to "encouraged or forced"
October 29th, 2020 CorbieVreccan made the following changes with the edit summary "wikify, make vague wording clearer.":
- Added "removed from their families"
- changed "The school was originally directed to assimilate" to "The school was designed to assimilate" and added "colonial" to "the majority United States, colonial culture."
October 29th 2020 North8000 removed "colonial"
October 29th 2020 CorbieVreccan added "removed from their families" with the edit summary "wikify, make vague wording clearer."
June 4th 2021 Natemump changed "removed from their families" to "removed from their families by St Joseph's staff"
June 4th 2021 4:02 Natemup added the statement (paraphrasing) that Cynthia Landrum said what is in the current Wikipedia paragraph
Conclusions
- As noted previously, the noted source is s student masters thesis which not published, and is not available on line or even for purchase. This is important but not central to the above portion of the analysis. The new conclusion from the above analysis is that none of the material appears to have come from the source and these four assertions doubly or triply fail WP:Verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is the added issue that Corbie claimed above to have no knowledge of who added the Landrum source to the history section. Your analysis says they did it themselves. natemup (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Landrum was attached to the article from the very beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Joseph%27s_Indian_School&diff=prev&oldid=527379246 Indigenous girl (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. It was mentioned as a possible source along with some others.....I'll try to check all of those out. This does not directly relate to the above analysis which of those 4 statements but is good info. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would only be fair to analyze the other side of this as well. Whether the source is primary or not, the Catholic News Agency is most definitely not an independent source. The proper use for this type source would be the same as The Catholic Telegraph source was used for. Biographical information concerning the school, its current programs and such are okay. In my opinion, its use to make controversial statements that are not then verified in independent sources is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. The Landrum thesis paper is a secondary source that contains primary information. Its use should be scrutinized from that perspective. The fact that we can not obtain said thesis is a central issue to its inclusion. I'm not sure it can be used in the way it has been used either. If we can find a way to have the ability to verify the information the article claims the thesis states then it could be used because it is both secondary and independent. Reliability of the source would have to be discussed. --ARoseWolf 14:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see how anyone could regard a student thesis, non-peer-reviewed, non-reliably-published, as WP:RS. I reject it out of hand. Its unobtainability is fairly irrelevant at that point. Elizium23 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps there are enough editors who have the same opinion as you to form a consensus. I reserve my judgement on the reliability until I see the source. For me, its unobtainability is central to its inclusion here. If we can't verify then a critical part of this equation is missing. In the case of all other sources provided, we can determine their status and reliability based, in no small part, on the fact we can read them ourselves. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, here, beyond my opinion, is policy from WP:SCHOLARSHIP:
- Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Elizium23 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. It just reemphasizes my point that care should be used when using the source and we need verifiability to accomplish that, which we don't have in this case. What I don't see above is that this completed dissertation automatically equates to a
non-peer-reviewed
andnon-reliably-published
student thesis or that it should be rejectedout of hand
. That is your opinion, which is fine, but is not supported by the policy quoted. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)- As I noted before, the key point from the analysis is that it looks like none of those items was even sourced from the Landrum paper. Those other factors merely changed "fails Wp:verifiability" up to "doubly or triply fails Wp:verifiability. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably not a bad idea to include the originator of the statement, Parkwells, in the conversation. I know its been altered many times since then but it can't hurt. --ARoseWolf 16:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Although "altered many times" is an understatement. Every one of those claims was either added or significantly altered/strengthened in those alterations. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still want an assessment of the CNA source where someone shows me evidence that source meets Wikipedia policy requirements as an independent source to use when countering or offering controversial claims. if we are claiming objectivity here then we must look at this source as well. The only sources that my tools say are "generally considered reliable" are CNN and Huffington Post with the caveat that HuffPo's reliability depends upon the contributor and the topic. All other sources receive a marginal rating or no rating at all with only the catholic-hierarchy.org and dehoniansusa.org websites receiving a red strike. Of note, the tool marks all of the book sources and the thesis by Landrum as published books, journals or peer-reviewed works and highlights it yellow, warning that some of them may be self-published, for what it's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would quibble on many of the points you said but....In general, I tend to look to see if the sources are credible and informative and then tend to not get unusually strict about the details, particularly when the insertions look like information vs. opinions, characterizations and value-laden wording. I wouldn't rule out even the student's paper despite it probably being 3 times over disqualified by the rules. But the gorilla in the living room is that we are terribly short of sources. The ONLY source we have about the school in general is the Catholic magazine. And then we have sourcing on 2 specific modern topics about the school. And then lots of sourcing about tiny modern areas. I did the above analysis to see if we have any really severe problems with the current content and to provide some clarity in that area. And I'd be happy to edit the article on factual material from the little sourcing that we do have. I'm also always happy to look for sourcing, even if I have to buy it, but not on some painful hair-shirt errand & outing myself trying to get the school in the Dakotas to supply the student's master's paper from 26 years ago to me. But I really don't want to participate in a long even-friendly debate about the little sourcing that we actually have to build an article from or long debates on characterization/ value-laden wording of the type that the political articles are mired in. That just isn't my dance. I rather go work on different articles instead than do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to quibble with the tools I'm using then I can give you the user names of the ones who created them for use on Wikipedia. You can't quibble with a tool itself. It's just a series of logic based on parameters. It is what it is. It marks sources as yellow, red or black as per WP:RS. It also tells me the type of source that it is, like a book, newspaper article, website. It does not analyze the content or determine if a source is primary or secondary for this particular topic. Credibility is the chief concern here. Whether a source is informative or not is dependent upon how its used in the article. As far as the other is concerned, I don't see us reaching a consensus here because the gulf is too wide on what we consider independent sources and credible sources or on how we analyze the issues within the article. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would quibble on many of the points you said but....In general, I tend to look to see if the sources are credible and informative and then tend to not get unusually strict about the details, particularly when the insertions look like information vs. opinions, characterizations and value-laden wording. I wouldn't rule out even the student's paper despite it probably being 3 times over disqualified by the rules. But the gorilla in the living room is that we are terribly short of sources. The ONLY source we have about the school in general is the Catholic magazine. And then we have sourcing on 2 specific modern topics about the school. And then lots of sourcing about tiny modern areas. I did the above analysis to see if we have any really severe problems with the current content and to provide some clarity in that area. And I'd be happy to edit the article on factual material from the little sourcing that we do have. I'm also always happy to look for sourcing, even if I have to buy it, but not on some painful hair-shirt errand & outing myself trying to get the school in the Dakotas to supply the student's master's paper from 26 years ago to me. But I really don't want to participate in a long even-friendly debate about the little sourcing that we actually have to build an article from or long debates on characterization/ value-laden wording of the type that the political articles are mired in. That just isn't my dance. I rather go work on different articles instead than do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still want an assessment of the CNA source where someone shows me evidence that source meets Wikipedia policy requirements as an independent source to use when countering or offering controversial claims. if we are claiming objectivity here then we must look at this source as well. The only sources that my tools say are "generally considered reliable" are CNN and Huffington Post with the caveat that HuffPo's reliability depends upon the contributor and the topic. All other sources receive a marginal rating or no rating at all with only the catholic-hierarchy.org and dehoniansusa.org websites receiving a red strike. Of note, the tool marks all of the book sources and the thesis by Landrum as published books, journals or peer-reviewed works and highlights it yellow, warning that some of them may be self-published, for what it's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Although "altered many times" is an understatement. Every one of those claims was either added or significantly altered/strengthened in those alterations. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably not a bad idea to include the originator of the statement, Parkwells, in the conversation. I know its been altered many times since then but it can't hurt. --ARoseWolf 16:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- As I noted before, the key point from the analysis is that it looks like none of those items was even sourced from the Landrum paper. Those other factors merely changed "fails Wp:verifiability" up to "doubly or triply fails Wp:verifiability. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. It just reemphasizes my point that care should be used when using the source and we need verifiability to accomplish that, which we don't have in this case. What I don't see above is that this completed dissertation automatically equates to a
- That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps there are enough editors who have the same opinion as you to form a consensus. I reserve my judgement on the reliability until I see the source. For me, its unobtainability is central to its inclusion here. If we can't verify then a critical part of this equation is missing. In the case of all other sources provided, we can determine their status and reliability based, in no small part, on the fact we can read them ourselves. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see how anyone could regard a student thesis, non-peer-reviewed, non-reliably-published, as WP:RS. I reject it out of hand. Its unobtainability is fairly irrelevant at that point. Elizium23 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would only be fair to analyze the other side of this as well. Whether the source is primary or not, the Catholic News Agency is most definitely not an independent source. The proper use for this type source would be the same as The Catholic Telegraph source was used for. Biographical information concerning the school, its current programs and such are okay. In my opinion, its use to make controversial statements that are not then verified in independent sources is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. The Landrum thesis paper is a secondary source that contains primary information. Its use should be scrutinized from that perspective. The fact that we can not obtain said thesis is a central issue to its inclusion. I'm not sure it can be used in the way it has been used either. If we can find a way to have the ability to verify the information the article claims the thesis states then it could be used because it is both secondary and independent. Reliability of the source would have to be discussed. --ARoseWolf 14:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. It was mentioned as a possible source along with some others.....I'll try to check all of those out. This does not directly relate to the above analysis which of those 4 statements but is good info. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know of any "gulf" unless you are inferring things from my post which are not the case or intended. Other than quibbling on the following sidebar item, I think I agree with everything that you've written. If you see difference of opinion, please tell me specifically what it is and I think we can resolve it. Regarding tools, the relevant policies are WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. wp:RS is a related guideline and you are describing some tool which somehow is hooked to wp:rs. So wp:rs is once removed, the tool is twice removed and your interpretation of the results of the tool makes it three times removed. If somehow you are ending up with saying to only sources that the tool lists can be used to satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR then I would disagree with you on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since the Landrum paper is not accessible, why not drop it as a source? No reader can easily refer to it, so it's not verifiable and is like a dead link. And speaking of that, I am trying to clean up the cites. The Alicia Summers report from a San Diego station seems based on the CNN report of Nov 17, 2014. Similarly, Indian Country Today reprinted the same account, crediting David Fitzgerald, under the same title as the CNN report, so I deleted the ICT cite. There is a video version of the Nov. 17, 2014 material, credited first to Anderson Cooper, and an article version of the Fitzgerald et al CNN investigation, both referring to the same Nov.17, 2014 material, with the same date. I recommend using the article only, as it's easier to access here. There are few true sources for the 2014 investigative report.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Parkwells I found the archived Christina Rose article with Indian Country Today and updated the link. There is some negative, positive and neutral information in the article but it appear to mostly be an interview with a school official. Still, it offers a balanced and neutral look at the school in relative modern times. --ARoseWolf 14:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since the Landrum paper is not accessible, why not drop it as a source? No reader can easily refer to it, so it's not verifiable and is like a dead link. And speaking of that, I am trying to clean up the cites. The Alicia Summers report from a San Diego station seems based on the CNN report of Nov 17, 2014. Similarly, Indian Country Today reprinted the same account, crediting David Fitzgerald, under the same title as the CNN report, so I deleted the ICT cite. There is a video version of the Nov. 17, 2014 material, credited first to Anderson Cooper, and an article version of the Fitzgerald et al CNN investigation, both referring to the same Nov.17, 2014 material, with the same date. I recommend using the article only, as it's easier to access here. There are few true sources for the 2014 investigative report.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Parkwells:, I think that your suggestion of dropping the Landrum paper is a good idea. Adding to the reasons that you noted, it is a student master's theses, and it appears that (per the analysis above) no editor has ever seen it and that it was not used for addition of any of the text which cites it. I have been slow to say that in the hopes that somebody could come up with a copy, but more importantly it has been due to an abundance of caution. We've had some spirited discussions here and that is the only source given (or even seen) for the statement/claims that the school operated as a forced assimilation school in it's early years. So removal of that reference essentially requires removal of that statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with removal of the statement and will never agree with it. Everyone wants to focus on the current successes of this school and give it undue weight but I will point out that this school does have a dark past right along with other Catholic, Protestant and BIE Indian schools that is well documented. Whitewashing the past by obvious COI editors here who are stated members of the diocese and Catholic Church will not take away the trauma this school and others like them have continually caused Native American communities no matter how many articles it is removed from. Removing this will only serve to further damage the reputation and credibility of this encyclopedia with Native communities. The school could hire additional Native Americans but refuses to do so with only 9% of staff, at most, being Native American. The school engages in lying and dubious fundraising tactics and invests only 54% of its funds into programs and student care. The school itself has been sued multiple times. Former staff of the school have been sued for alleged sexual abuse. Former students have discussed their horrific experiences with heavy discipline. They have also documented that the school did, in fact, engage in tactics of acculturation in the past as seen at other schools. Former students also shared examples of young Native children committing suicide, not to mention the countless parents who were forced down the path of alcoholism and even suicide themselves. If this school was serious about the Lakota culture rather than writing about how Wikipedia is so bad and CNN has an agenda and Indian Country distorts and the BBB exaggerates then maybe they could maintain a shred of integrity and respect within Native communities at large. But what do I know? I guess the occasional "powwow" where Catholic prayers and hymns are passed off as being Lakota just cause they use the language and traditional beliefs are mocked by a Jesus in Lakota dress is more important than the truth. --ARoseWolf 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, most or all of the recent editing has been by dispassionate and experienced editors who simply want an informative enclyclopedic article that complies with core policies, most notably WP:Verifiability. The edit in question was on a NARROW question....whether not the school initially operated as a forcible assimilation school, by the common specific meaning of that term which roughly speaking is the mid-1800's - ~1920's meaning. As detailed not only does this 3 times over fail WP:V policy, the analysis shows that even that weak non-source was not used to put the material in. Again, this was on the NARROW question. Your post detailed many other items. By count, the majority of them are already covered in the article so I don't know why you are mentioning them here. However, one broad one which encompassed much of your post was that different folks could see their current "MO" as being good or bad, and their activities and programs related to Native American culture to be good or bad or real or bogus. What's in the article so far is based on the the sources that so far have been able to be found. Keep in mind that they need to say that it is about St. Joseph's. This aspect can certainly be expanded. Perhaps you can find sources relevant to that so that you or we can build / expand that section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Indigenous Girl provided two sources which detailed eye witness accounts of forced acculturation tactics employed by St. Joseph's and the source states they attended St. Joseph's at the time, not any other iteration of the school prior to it becoming St. Joseph's. The only one who has commented about these sources is myself. No one else commented nor did anyone else acknowledge these sources so please don't say that sources were not provided. Others are perfectly within their rights to refuse or ignore these sources when they are presented but sources have been provided. If we are supposed to be creating "an informative encyclopedic article" then one would expect that ALL information will be presented from ALL sides, including eye witness accounts reported in academic studies and which are "verifiable". This was a very dark time in North American history and denial of its existence in the face of sources would be troubling. I have refrained from editing because of my passion for these subjects and to avoid any appearance of having information added that stemmed from a COI though I have no affiliation with the Lakota tribe around the school, the school itself or the religious organization to which the school belongs. I have made my opinions known here but largely maintained that we need verifiable sources. I will also remind everyone that these events occurred during a period in time when the Eugenics and Sterilization programs in North America were at its height. Many of these programs were facilitated and encouraged by both government and religious institutions on the basis of keeping bloodlines pure and maintaining the nuclear family as dictated by Euro-American and religious practices and beliefs. If you want to be further educated on the way that government and religious institutions viewed Native Americans in the times between the late 19th century into the mid to late 20th century then I encourage you to read up on it. There are many articles here on Wikipedia that are informative in this regard and I have been very appreciative of the fact that editors have taken an interest in the truth about the treatment of Native Americans and First Nations citizens in the not so distant past. I definitely had no idea it went as deep as it did until I researched it myself. I wasn't born during this time but after exploring Wikipedia and finding these articles it opened my eyes to some of the discriminations and atrocities that my recent ancestors were submitted to. The sources are there, yes, even for the treatment of these Native American children at this particular school as witnessed by them in the past. --ARoseWolf 15:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the post. That's a whole lot of things and different times in history blended together. I don't agree with your implication regarding supplied sources. But here's a way to address everything in your post. Propose some additions (verbatum) in the talk page that are specifically about St. Joseph's and detail how they are that are directly supported by a source (e.g. so the source must be about St. Joseph's). If they are that I'll put them in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- May 25, 1927 issue of the Argus Leader page 4 states the school will be modeled on Father Flanagan's Boy's Town orphanage model. Also mentioned is Father Henry's direct ties to the school at Cheyenne River. September 26, 1934 issue of the Argus Leader page 8 states there are 120 students, the majority of which are orphans. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the post. That's a whole lot of things and different times in history blended together. I don't agree with your implication regarding supplied sources. But here's a way to address everything in your post. Propose some additions (verbatum) in the talk page that are specifically about St. Joseph's and detail how they are that are directly supported by a source (e.g. so the source must be about St. Joseph's). If they are that I'll put them in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Indigenous Girl provided two sources which detailed eye witness accounts of forced acculturation tactics employed by St. Joseph's and the source states they attended St. Joseph's at the time, not any other iteration of the school prior to it becoming St. Joseph's. The only one who has commented about these sources is myself. No one else commented nor did anyone else acknowledge these sources so please don't say that sources were not provided. Others are perfectly within their rights to refuse or ignore these sources when they are presented but sources have been provided. If we are supposed to be creating "an informative encyclopedic article" then one would expect that ALL information will be presented from ALL sides, including eye witness accounts reported in academic studies and which are "verifiable". This was a very dark time in North American history and denial of its existence in the face of sources would be troubling. I have refrained from editing because of my passion for these subjects and to avoid any appearance of having information added that stemmed from a COI though I have no affiliation with the Lakota tribe around the school, the school itself or the religious organization to which the school belongs. I have made my opinions known here but largely maintained that we need verifiable sources. I will also remind everyone that these events occurred during a period in time when the Eugenics and Sterilization programs in North America were at its height. Many of these programs were facilitated and encouraged by both government and religious institutions on the basis of keeping bloodlines pure and maintaining the nuclear family as dictated by Euro-American and religious practices and beliefs. If you want to be further educated on the way that government and religious institutions viewed Native Americans in the times between the late 19th century into the mid to late 20th century then I encourage you to read up on it. There are many articles here on Wikipedia that are informative in this regard and I have been very appreciative of the fact that editors have taken an interest in the truth about the treatment of Native Americans and First Nations citizens in the not so distant past. I definitely had no idea it went as deep as it did until I researched it myself. I wasn't born during this time but after exploring Wikipedia and finding these articles it opened my eyes to some of the discriminations and atrocities that my recent ancestors were submitted to. The sources are there, yes, even for the treatment of these Native American children at this particular school as witnessed by them in the past. --ARoseWolf 15:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, most or all of the recent editing has been by dispassionate and experienced editors who simply want an informative enclyclopedic article that complies with core policies, most notably WP:Verifiability. The edit in question was on a NARROW question....whether not the school initially operated as a forcible assimilation school, by the common specific meaning of that term which roughly speaking is the mid-1800's - ~1920's meaning. As detailed not only does this 3 times over fail WP:V policy, the analysis shows that even that weak non-source was not used to put the material in. Again, this was on the NARROW question. Your post detailed many other items. By count, the majority of them are already covered in the article so I don't know why you are mentioning them here. However, one broad one which encompassed much of your post was that different folks could see their current "MO" as being good or bad, and their activities and programs related to Native American culture to be good or bad or real or bogus. What's in the article so far is based on the the sources that so far have been able to be found. Keep in mind that they need to say that it is about St. Joseph's. This aspect can certainly be expanded. Perhaps you can find sources relevant to that so that you or we can build / expand that section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)