Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Name changes

I have added numerous name changes and statue removals done in the wake of the discoveries of the graves. I am wondering if it might be better in a table format, similar to the articles here, here, and here. Much of the prose I am writing, especially for the schools, takes on the same format and includes:

1. old name
2. new name
3. who was responsible
4. when it was done
5. why the change is being made (description of the eponym)

They could be grouped by category (e.g., schools, statues, publications, etc.), with a column at the end for details. Another section could have proposed name changes. 188.148.229.11 (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It may very well become necessary to condense into a table, with a general overview preceding it. Not sure it's necessary yet, but no harm in having it set up. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statues and institutional name changes

The weightiness of this list is starting to overtake the core purpose of this article, to document the discoveries and the direct reactions to those discoveries. A lot of the "iconoclasm" (really?) is part of the larger ideology of systemic racism, not just indigenous issues and often not a direct response to these discoveries. One notable exception would be the toppling of the statue at Ryerson University. There are hundreds of schools, institutes, etc. named for John A. Macdonald; shall we list each change by each overseeing government body in each region?.. or just say "In the wake of the discoveries at Kamloops and Marieval, numerous schools indicated they would be changing their names, which currently commemorate X, Y and Z. In addition, the cities of A, B and C have removed public statues of X and Y."? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely too big. As more graves are found, it won't be getting shorter. A lot of seriously and widely controversial things have standalone reaction articles. Shoveling it there might make more sense than trying to continually fold it together or prune it back here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sources (like this one) mention the changes as direct results of the Kamloops discoveries, but it might be better branched off into a separate article like InedibleHulk said. Something similar to List of changes made due to the George Floyd protests or List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests. 188.148.229.11 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

2021?

there are articles about it from as early as 2015 (BBC)? Wilhelm3 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The actual discoveries took place this year, but the historical context goes back hundreds of years. This article is just meant to bring together the two major discoveries this year, and the inevitable others that are to come in the next few months. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the Brandon one's from 2019, so I agree to drop the year, especially since it's already almost July and the rest could easily take years to find (and that's not even figuring for potential future lockdowns and coverups). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's no reason for this article to restrict itself to 2021, considering both Brandon's earlier discoveries, the preliminary work done by Tk'emlups te Secwepemc in the early 2000s, and the fact that these discoveries will keep coming. I reckon the title should be something like "Unmarked graves at Canadian Indian residential schools" as suggested by CaffeinAddict and Floydian on Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. James Hyett (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Unmarked" might be shortsighted, too. Markers are planned, to the extent possible. And in this political climate, things can move relatively fast. The gravesites will stay discovered, though, near what used to be and are still easier to call Canadian Indian residential schools. That much is known. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the year is an unnecessary qualifier, given that there aren't other articles covering this topic for other years. Dropping the year is the simple solution. FWIW, the Brandon IRS unmarked graves weren't announced until June 4th; the study commenced in 2019, so we shouldn't label this as when the "discoveries" started. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for unilaterally moving the page without consensus, I just moved it back to its original page name as to how it was when it was first started. If the page should be moved, it should go through the formal move request process so I just moved it back to the original very first name the page had. The 2021 is a necessary qualifier as 2021 is the year in which the discoveries really started to "breaking out" and gaining major traction and widespread domestic and international media coverage in the news. If we don't keep the 2021 who's to stop someone from adding older discoveries such as the 1974 72 graves at the Battleford Industrial School to the article "Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries"? Unless I am greatly mistaken, and this page is in fact meant to be for discoveries in the entire history of Canada in general, I thought this page was only about the surgence of discoveries since Kamloops 2021. This page is about the discoveries that mostly went underway in 2021 and not other years. Yes, the Brandon search started in 2019, but it was not until June 4, 2021, that it was announced that they had located 104 potential graves. Yes, the actual discoveries took place this year, but the historical context goes back hundreds of years - correct, which is why i think it is important to note that the mass discoveries began in 2021. Tragically, there potentially could be even more graves unearthed moving forward this year and even this decade going into 2021, 2022, 2023... so unfortunately the page might end up in the future as " 2020s Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries. " Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The announcements were mostly this year, definitely. But there's a process called discovery, too, made of particular discovery events. First you hear the stories, then you find the land, then you use the radar. Next you discover who was buried where, and when, possibly why. The whole thing was interrupted by the COVID response, but it's still a whole thing that had already started. And to be clear, this doesn't cover all of Canada, for hundreds of years. Just the residential school plots from the residential school era (about 150 years). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I certainly won't stop anyone from recalling and accounting for Battleford. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Children vs people

Is there any evidence that any of these unmarked graves do *not* contain children? Sources seem to be going with "children", from what I have seen. Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

They were residential schools, so safe to assume most were native children. But unsanitary conditions, improper heating and routine violence don't discriminate against killing old white Christians, either. Proposed edit? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I know I've encountered in a few of the hundreds of articles that staff, caretakers, and the non-aboriginal students, were also buried in these cemeteries. What the article needs to note is that these are not exhumed graves, but "pings" on a Ground Penetrating Radar survey. Some could be empty, some could be filled with multiple bodies. The headlines seem to steer this more than the substance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

An empty grave would just be dirt. These weren't often likely like modern urban crooks, sneaking in luxurious vaults or liners. But yeah, if it needs saying, by all means make clear that (Crown and corporate) Canada doesn't dig up "Indian burial grounds" on purpose! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Big ref

I've spoken with a researcher at Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre (IRSHDC) and received links to a significant report that focuses on the unmarked graves and cemeteries at residential schools, as well as providing a background on the conditions of the buildings and disease outbreaks (particularly tuberculosis and a notable bit on the damage the Spanish flu caused). This should replace newspaper sources wherever possible.

• Where Are the Children Buried? by Dr. Scott Hamilton
• Appendix of tables and illustrations

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Murray Sinclair's use of hyperbole

Under the heading "Background", the two final sentences of the first paragraph state "An exact number of school-related deaths remains unknown due to incomplete records from negligence. Estimates range from 3,200 to over 30,000." Two sources are cited for this rather astonishing claim: an article from the CBC website, which states "Sinclair offered the figure of 6,000 in a later interview with Evan Solomon to air Saturday on CBC Radio's The House — much higher than earlier estimates that put the number of school children who died in the system at less than 4,000, but still possibly far short of the real outcome", and an article on The Canadian Encyclopedia's website, which states "The commission also found 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." With context it is clear that Mr. Sinclair is not citing an "estimate" he is using hyperbole, in the way that people often do when they say "it could be 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 times as much", without it ever actually reflecting an objective evaluation of the evidence. Why not just make it an even 100,000, and have done with it, one wonders? The commission which actually investigated the matter -- comprised of First Nations persons -- came up with the "3,200" number, and the government's other investigation came up with the "less than 4,000" figure. Citing Sinclair's fresh-out-of-a-nearby-orifice claim of "5 to 10 times" as much, gives undue weight to the extreme number he suggested. An encyclopedia should not be in the practice of promoting guesstimates or scientific wild-ass guesses. Bricology (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, even the TRC report (which should be the third source on that sentence) states:

The commission also found 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.[1]

And given that they've found 966 at two of the 139 former schools (there's more than that when you consider they switched sites in many cases), 3,200 is going to come and go very quickly. But in the spirit of what you are saying, I think we could truncate it to something along the lines of "the TRC Report estimates 3,200. However, many believe this to be a conservative estimate, and he actual number to be much higher." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence could rather say something like "the TRC Report estimates 3,200. However, other sources state this to be a conservative estimate, and the actual number could be much higher." along with the sources that state the higher numbers theories etc rather than "many believe" because that choice of words adds a faith/unsupported air to the sentences. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, too much WP:WEASEL. I think what you wrote there is perfect. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted the sentence/the section but not sure it is what editorial consensus seems to be - feel free to adjust/change/etc. Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Map of every residential school site in Canada

Would anyone be interested in making a map for the site of every residential school in canada, like in [here]? Frozemint (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If there is a handy list of addresses or locations, I can make an interactive KML/json map fairly quickly. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The map in the tweet comes from the canadian encyopedia, which in turn uses a google map with markers I believe. It might be possible to simply parse through the markers and obtain the necessary data. There is a LOT of data points however, so I am hoping someone with more expertise in this area could help. The intend is to put the discovery of unmarked graves in all the locations so far within the context of just how widespread residential schools were. Frozemint (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've spent the last couple hours working on a map that would have the names, years active, and colour coded to show the sites with confirmed discoveries, sites currently being examined, and the remainder. I'm using IRSHDC[2] and NCTR[3] to locate the often difficult to pinpoint locations... but I'm only up to Bishop Horden; slow go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks for putting in the effort. Frozemint (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so the data is in place. Needs some work to be displayable (see to right... give it about 4 hours to display properly, or edit and preview the section), but it's there. On my way I got to experience the geography of Canada far beyond what I have ever seen. However, I feel like Sam O'Neil on the bridge of the Event Horizon... I have been to hell and back. Every profile, every list of confirmed deaths. It is disturbing to say the least, and I hope everybody gets to see what our government and the church did to these children. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, suggesting the addition of a map like the one you made, ensuring the readers of the article appreciate the sheer scale of the atrocities this country committed was exactly the intend. Thank you again for your hard work. Frozemint (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

New Brunswick

"In New Brunswick, Education Minister Dominic Cardy said the education curriculum would be amended to teach about the province's Indigenous day schools.[36]"

The platitude is nice, but New Brunswick didn't have any residential schools. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious burnings of Catholic churches

After the discoveries, a number of Catholic churches began burning down across western Canada (primarily in First Nations reserves), all of which have been labelled as suspicious by the police investigators. They likely shouldn't be included as reactions until they're definitively shown to be arson motivated by the discoveries, but given the timing and specificity of the locations/buildings, many are already speculating that they are. Maybe they should be mentioned under Reactions as "suspected"? Even if some/all of them are proven to be independent, I don't think having mention of them as "suspected to be related but later found to not be" would be out of place. 206.214.235.110 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that given the incidents are still under investigation, it would be disingenuous and misleading to include speculations into the article at this point (WP:SPECULATION). Frozemint (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

But very reliable sources do speculate. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So let's be more reliable and not speculate. Undoubtedly the connection will be made, but we should wait until then. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Floydian, Surtsicna (and ping to Ivanvector) what about creating a separate article 2021 Canadian church burnings? With the latest Edmonton church burned to ground this is now become a national issue of enduring significance. Even if it turns out this is unconnected the events would be notable for how wrong everyone was to make this connection.VR _talk 15:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see a news article about one of these fires that does not mention gravesite discoveries. I am not saying that we should go as far as the Alberta premier, who is bluntly speaking of the fires as hate crimes, but excluding any mention of the church burnings is not helpful to the readers. I do not see why we should not report it as reliable sources do: simply state that churches are burning and that investigations into possible links with gravesite discoveries are taking place. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My proposal is simply to link 2021 Canadian church burnings in the "See also" section of this article. The article on Church burnings would be standalone as its notable in its own right.VR _talk 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In accordance with previous similar articles, the movement that is being accused (whether justifiably or not) ought to have explicit mention of their accused activities, particularly when there are so many sources making such claims. As such, I’ll be adding it to this article. I’m presently against creating a new article on these church burnings because there has not been a serious link made between them independent of speculation. Once a definitive link has been made by at least one serious credible source, I think a new article on the church burnings would be a welcome addition and provide additional context that would be inappropriate for this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why I was pinged here, but thanks. These events are being covered in major international news sources (BBC, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post) so coverage on Wikipedia is warranted. Those sources are also explicitly linking the burnings to the "discoveries" (not really discoveries, governments and religious orders have known for decades) of unmarked children's graves on former residential school grounds. Do we already have an article on the gravesites? The burnings belong in that article. If they turn out to be entirely random and not related at all, that's still the correct article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's this article. I thought this was the WikiProject Canada discussion board. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries → Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries – Basically to formalize what already appears to be a clear consensus at the page's 2021? section. The year is an unnecessary qualifier, and potentially confusing too since many references are years old and the process of discovery started way back then. There is also no apparent reason not to expand the scope to potentially include Battleford Industrial School gravesite discovery from 1972. I would add that concision is also a factor. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as the person who made the now-reverted move (and the original article title for that matter). Frankly the argument that older discoveries could be added here doesn't bother me... they should be here; there's no reason to limit this to the recent/ongoing announcements. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, for aforementioned reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, based on the talk page and for general clarity and expansion of the page. Terasaface (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Suppoer, as broader discourse of residential school grave site discoveries isn't just limited to discoveries in 2021... I found myself not including discoveries from other years despite their obvious relevance because of the year quantifier. Frozemint (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There will be a lot more gravesite discoveries in the future. This isn't just a one-off, it's an important moment in Canada's history. Dominicmgm (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the article title misleads the reader to believe that the burial findings were only in 2021. 108.41.156.76 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support-- I'm perplexed by arguments about what this article *is* about (ie discoveries that have been announced in 2021), as opposed to what we *should* have an article on (ie the discovery of gravesites and IRSs). But given the strength of support above me, that straw man seems to have flown. James Hyett (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I kind of get it. For a lot of the English-speaking world, 2021 was the first time these kids were even reported missing. But yeah, seems to have cleared up now, strawman or not, I've never seen a Drop The Year go so swimmingly! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The date is irrelevant. These are deaths from the last century for the most part and there's good indication there will be forensic/archeologic efforts to find bodies for years to come. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - The subject hit public attention due to recent 2021 discoveries, but nothing about this story is truly new. Spyder212 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - both "Indian" and "discoveries" should also be excluded from the title; simply "Canadian residential schools gravesites" is concise enough. "Indian" is offensive for no reason (yes, it's the proper title, but there weren't any other residential schools with graveyards for their students), and "discoveries" is inaccurate: it's been widely known that children were buried in unmarked graves on the grounds of former residential schools for many years; they're being formally located with technology now, but that's not the same as being "discovered" as though we didn't know they were there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. I would support the title Canadian residential schools gravesites. Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Response 1) in a non-Canadian view of the subject Residential school disambiguations include Boarding school, so by calling it what it is - whether the name was offensive or not is just proper semantics. 2) Despite the knowledge of there being unmarked graves, the scale to which they existed is still a "discovery" as they had to use forensic and archaeological means to find said gravesites. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as there are more to discover. There are many schools that have unmarked graves but not discovered and it might take a year to find the graves in all schools Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Chandan Kanti Paul: you posted two "support" comments here with roughly the same text. It looks to me like that was a mistake, so I merged your two comments together into one. Please feel free to revert me if I've misunderstood your intent, but then please note that you are expected to make only one bolded "support" or "oppose" comment in a straw poll like this. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support to avoid potential confusion and scepticism of material. The concept isn't limited to this year. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewriting the article's "discoveries" framing

Per the legitimate concerns raised by Ivanvector, where we definitely don't want to perpetuate the myth of the gravesites and frame it as a "discovery", do we want to rewrite the intro of the article, where the "discovery" wording is still used? I think there is a bit of consensus already from the second renaming voting, but I just want to throw in an extra section here before we go ahead with the correction. Frozemint (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources to balance in some NPOV

This hot-off-the-presses article from the New York Post has an interesting quote, which succinctly explains what I feel is a more neutral the opposite POV on the topic.

"Most of the teachers, priests, nuns and others in charge were well-meaning, though, as in any group, some bad apples took advantage of their positions to inflict abuse. The idea was to turn poverty-stricken children into productive, even prosperous, members of mainstream Canadian society — and, from the church’s perspective, to save their souls."

Torrance, Kelly Jane (July 12, 2021). "US media shamefully justified a string of Canadian church burnings". New York Post. Retrieved July 12, 2021.

This UVIC dissertation offers a good in-depth look into the conditions of not only the schools, but the communities, the children, the general population by comparison, etc. after 1930 (though it covers before that too, oddly)

Making Poverty: A History of On-reserve Housing Programs, 1930-1996

As it stands, the "Background" section gives the impression that, for 115 years, the entire staff at these schools beat and tortured all the children attending every one of them. Obviously with the recentism straining towards the sensationalist approach to this story ("that'll rile 'em up"), it's a topic that is difficult to offer a grounded approach to without upsetting someone. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment:

1. Why do you think the first quote is "impartial"/neutral POV? There is no proof that the staff were well-meaning, bearing in mind that up tp 50% of the inmates died. The facts are proof to the contrary. Being positive about this is clearly partial - will you stand by it when there are 10 "discoveries"? How about 100? Are you aware of the size of the pipeline and the range of estimates of the dead? Are you aware indigenous people were not legally permitted to sue (or vote) still in the relatively recent past? Even though Canadian government controls the "discoveries" by controlling the funding (it could stop any time) and allocating it to particular indigenous organizations (which might be more government-friendly than others), this might be difficult to stop.

2. Why would you think a 25+ year old (pre-internet) study would provide a neutral point of view? If you go back long enough you will find UVIC studies supporting apartheid (just 10 years back would be by guess).37.143.126.151 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your speculation adds nothing to this. the article is currently almost entirely based on the truth and reconciliation report, which as we are learning now, also wasn't too accurate. "Up to 50% of the inmates died" shows you are not impartial, nor capable of not grossly exaggerating. The number of discoveries is irrelevant; we know they are there, we have known they were there for a very long time. I am very aware as I have gone through the entire TRC report, as well as the background and TRC death list for every individual school, including the 5 in Nfld not covered in the TRC report. Being one sided is not neutral, nor is the remainder of your tangent. The Canadian government also controls the media by allocating funding of it to particular media organizations (which might be more government-friendly than others), most notably the CBC which makes up half the references, so moot point. As for point two, what relevance does the internet have (the lack of sensationalism, perhaps)? "If you go back far enough" is not a valid objection, if you go back far enough tuberculosis killed 5-10% of children, everywhere in Canada... but again your speculation holds no value. Also, if you note above, I said that these sources provide a different look into the situation, to balance in a neutral point of view. - Floydian ^τ _¢

Going to jump in here and say that, while the IP poster is seems to desire certain non-neutral perspectives into the article, the New York Post is not reflective of a NPOV perspective. Besides the NYP‘s well-established character of taking sides on issues, they do perform admirable reporting on occasion. However, in this instance, the quoted block posted by Floydian is very clearly intended to deflect blame from the institutions as a whole and place the onus on a select group of “bad apples.” This is an interpretation of the events in question, as one could reasonably counter such a statement by saying the residential school system gave these “bad apples” the ability to inflict significant harm. Further, it attempts to legitimize the efforts of the residential schools. As a Catholic, I see missionary endeavors as a noble exercise, but I’m willing to admit that it isn’t universally perceived as such. I would suggest seeking a few new disinterested editors to help improve this article and ensure concordance with the guidelines established by WP:NPOV. All that said, excellent work from those who have been researching and posting additional information over the last few weeks. I wish my contribution could be as substantial. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough about NYP. However, I have seen some stories and articles regarding the "positive" light, and I just want the article to make clear that these atrocities weren't committed at every school and/or throughout their history. For example: Huffington Post, Toronto Sun (from yesterday)

I'm not looking to falsely characterize this stuff as "oh it was only here and there", more just a simple "while a handful of communities benefited from the program, it was by and large the site of sickness, starvation, and assault"...etc. etc. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Did not wish to imply you were violating NPOV. You've done an excellent job of using multiple sources throughout this article. I think my complaints can be more levied with the lack of similar efforts from editors such as myself. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries → Canadian Indian residential schools gravesites – Per a note made (by me) late in the previous move discussion regarding "discoveries" in the title. What makes these gravesites notable isn't the fact that they're being located, it's that they exist at all. "Discoveries" also perpetuates the POV settler narrative that nobody knew they were there until now, despite it being well known for more than a century now that Indigenous children were dying at these schools at rates far exceeding childhood mortality rates in the general population (thanks to deliberately poor care, severe physical abuse, and medical experimentation) but the dead were never returned to their families, and despite decades of activism on that exact subject. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Google Books search reveals that gravesites are discussed in A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986, published in 1999. So yes, I agree that the scope can and should be expanded to the gravesites in general, not just the discoveries of the gravesites. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support – The word "discoveries" is pointless and unnecessary. STSC (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The article for Nazi concentration camps is not called Nazi concentration camp discoveries as it's not just about the discovery of the camps, it's about the camps in general. Per the OP, the article should be about the gravesites, not their discoveries. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The word "discoveries" is unnecessary and not true. These graves have been "located" or "confirmed" but are not discovered as no one knew there were graves at IRS sites. Survivors gave testimony as to the presence of graves as is outlined in Volume 4 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report. Removing "Discoveries" is also more concise. Smallison (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose for now. The recent "discoveries" are what makes this article notable in the first place - the worldwide attention to the subject. As time passes, the subject remains the "Gravesites", but which were largely discovered in 2021 (although there's evidence to suggest they were known about for quite some time). CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. They were only discovered (or I guessed revealed) to the PUBLIC in 2021. PlanetsForLife 14:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support removing "discoveries" per nom, but would Canadian Indian residential school gravesites be better style? Or Gravesites at Canadian Indian residential schools? Ham II (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support one of the two suggestions offered by Ham II immediately above. My leaning is towards Canadian Indian residential school gravesites as it is essentially the same as the proposal initially suggested, with the grammatical fix of "school" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support the opening paragraph hits hard on the implication of the word "discovered" Frozemint (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is the wrong emphasis. In some cases the so-called discovery is anything but. These are currently unmarked graves, but some of them were marked at one time. Meters (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector and others, any opinion on "schools" vs "school" as brought up above? Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• @PlanetsForLife, Jonny Nixon, Smallison, Dominicmgm, STSC, and Surtsicna: - ping :) Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• None, frankly :D Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Singular per WP:PLURAL. PlanetsForLife 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Either one of Ham's suggestions would be a reasonable correction. I slightly prefer "Canadian Indian residential school gravesites". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguating provincial links

What are the thoughts on the various links that include provincial disambiguators (e.g. Marieval, Saskatchewan)? Are they necessary at all? Should they be switched to postal abbreviations (SK, AB, ON, etc.)? Should the status quo stay put? Since we link to these towns/townships, I feel it is redundant to include the province. My personal preference is to remove them altogether. Any objections? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you describe what you mean again? Also, love the Clash reference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hehe, it was begging to be done! So, the change I want to make would, for example, change:

"The Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Redberry Lake, Saskatchewan burned to the ground on the afternoon of July 8, and as with others was determined to be "suspicious" by the RCMP.[88] On July 9, the Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church was destroyed by arson. The church was located in the Kehewin Cree Nation, south of Bonnyville, Alberta, and was slated for demolition.[89]"

To:

"The Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Redberry Lake burned to the ground on the afternoon of July 8, and as with others was determined to be "suspicious" by the RCMP.[88] On July 9, the Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church was destroyed by arson. The church was located in the Kehewin Cree Nation, south of Bonnyville, and was slated for demolition.[89]"

Basically just removing the province from most of the prose, when it follows the name of a municipality. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Consider this approval from me for that. I say don't wait for consensus; seems like a copyedit well within the MOS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No information yet about the causes of theses deaths?

Has this really not been discussed in reliable sources? I came here to find out what information or even speculation there was, but there's nothing in the article except the infobox which says the cause was the school system, and that seems a pretty useless statement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I haven't seen much in regards to cause of death in recent articles, but the older ones look into it. we don't know when these gravesites were placed, so it's difficult to pinpoint a cause to each site. That said, tuberculosis was the main childhood killer until antibiotics became available in the 30s, both inside and out of these schools. The "Spanish" flu did a number in 1920/21. Combined with poor nutrition and squalor living conditions, disease had an easy time taking lives. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevin D. Annett

Surprised not seeing any references or discussion to the work of Kevin D. Annett who seems to have started or at least facilitated the conversations we are having here since the late 1980s. A little background:

1. As late as March 2021 Reuters called him a conspiracy theorist: Reuters. This has surprisingly not been retracted by Reuters following the Canadian discoveries of May/June 2021.

2. His Wikipedia page (in English) has been deleted some years ago as not notable enough. This is strange as his collaborators are as blue-chip as they come, including, on the Canadian indigenous case, Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish prosecutor. However, Annett has been defrocked by his church in Canada sometime in the early 1990s for researching the subject and deported from England for the same as recently as ~2010, although he has had steady but muted exposure in the Canadian media over the last 3 decades.

Annett focuses on publishing first-person evidence of the Canadian residential school system victims and attempting to prosecute perpetrators under international law. I encourage other editors to look into this material and reference it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.202.156 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We request for Kevin Annett’s researched work be Published here n Wikipedia please. Cree Swampy (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't do much without a link to this publication. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to report I have read: “Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust - A summary of an ongoing, independent inquiry into Canadian Native “Residential Schools” and their Legacy” (2001). Publisher: The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada continuing the work of previous tribunals into native residential schools (...). Bibliography starts at p. 100. https://www.academia.edu/10177515/HIDDEN_FROM_HISTORY_The_Canadian_Holocaust “Hidden No Longer” (2010). Testimonies p. 205, references p. 237. PDF can be found online if you’re good at search. “Murder by Decree: The Crime of Genocide in Canada A Counter Report to the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”” (2016). Documentation starts at p. 144, bibliography at p. 383. PDF can be found online if you’re good at search. Annett has written other books but I have not been able to obtain them in electronic form and thus cannot evaluate them.

Criticisms of Annett’s reputation: Against Annett: this letter from his ex-employer (broadly speaking) referring to his “psychological health” but not providing any evidence of irrational/criminal behaviour or wrongdoing, or how his information could be wrong. This is from 2018 when the subject of residential schools was perceived by many as very marginal. https://pacificmountain.ca/wordpress2017/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Annett-Statement-18-11.pdf I believe this is what Reuters referenced (!). One anonymous Weebly site which says Annett is kooky (just because it says so): http://stopkevinannett.weebly.com The aforementioned Reuters sentence refers to Annett in a specific case in the residential school’s scandal involving the queen of England and is not really related to what this article is about; Reuters does not really discredit Annett either, it just says that “someone else says he’s a conspiracy theorist”. What the Church had to say in 1999 in response to Annett’s coverage in mainstream UK media: https://newint.org/features/1999/05/05/letters Coverage: https://newint.org/features/1999/01/05/update

Mainstream media coverage of Annett There has been a lot, referenced in his books, and would have to be parsed by someone else. Some was very positive and none I’ve seen has been negative or doubted his credibility in the way

Annett has an article on Italian Wikipedia since 2009: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Annett

Annett’s 2-hour documentary from 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMjSL2brtuA Winner: Best International Documentary at the 2006 Los Angeles Independent Film; Best Director for an International Documentary.

The legal situation Annett operated in as a whistleblower since the 1980s seems to have been as follows (thus making his approach perhaps the only one possible): The Crown is counterparty to agreements of Natives on land and resources but cannot be legally sued. Churches do not have to maintain open archives. The Indian leaders granted majority of the media attention such as Sinclair who were party to Truth Commission seem to be economically dependent on the government, churches and their corporate sponsors. The Commission’s mandate was not binding, had perpetrating organizations on board, and failed to disburse the funds to investigate Collusion between various parts of government, churches, and relative shortage of media coverage. That said, Annett has been supported by mainstream Italian and EU politicians and the Spanish prosecutor named above for credible support over the years.

Summary of what I’ve found (to be edited for clarity): Backstory: in the 1980s Annett, a Church minister, wonders why no Natives attend the Mass, and uncovers repeated allegations of murder and sexual abuse. Investigations lead to his (unique) firing by the Church and attempts at public marginalization (virtually identical to Bryce decades ago). Some of the Annett’s books provide clear timeline of his findings, media coverage Annett was prevented from completing a PhD on the subject but his approach is thoroughly scholarly. So I would first of all recommend inclusion of his references none of which are reputationally dubious. Specifically, some of it relevant to this article and some to others: 98% of west coast population died/exterminated. Circumstantial evidences. 50% figure with references X inoculated Indians with smallpox. Multiple scholarly references backing it up. Y sent smallpox infected blankets to Indians. Multiple scholarly. references backing it up. Eyewitness testimonies. So far noone has questioned their veracity (nothing found online).

And more broadly for context (not for Wikipedia publication, I guess, at leastuntil further facts come to light): 1. Interesting but perhaps not includable info about how Churches and gov managed the PR campaign: Closing archives (p) Destroying archives Destroying sites Minimizing or twisting media coverage Applying pressure tactics (p. ) including deportation

2. Regarding Christianity Annett does not say anything remotely kooky, but mentions once or twice that Church institutionalized under Constantine and became a power operation with its x doctrine (he mentions bulls x and y) instead of providing Jesus teaching 3. Selection of Indian elites, I.e. most compliant abusers at schools became Indian politicians and chiefs, with Christianity as necessary condition for them to become so. This is alleged by some of the witnesses (publishing this probably did not endear Annett to Native chiefs). 4. Collusion of corporate church donors, church and government and law enforcement over Indian land ownership and resources in context of Indian indefensible legal status. 5. Dubious reputation of the Reconcilation commission. Not only was it run by perpetrators, had no mandate and resulted in next to no funding granted since, or ranted but not transfered. but was led by x who in the context comes about as an Uncle Tom who feigns surprise at the findings. 6. Only one of Annett's provided quotations might be wrong ("kill the Indian within the Indian"), but if mistaken same mistake was made by many others.

Overall: 1. Annett’s credibility marginalization seems to be identical to Bryce’s. If we mention one we should mention another. If someone disagrees, let’s get into a comparison into finer detail. 2. His film should be referenced. While not major (Hollywood-focused) festivals on US coasts, those are established festivals on the indie circuit. Film won awards and was not self-produced. 3. Wikipedia does not like quoting but we should include his materials as references for eyewitness testimonies pending decision on how we judge credibility of his material. Some Italian, EU politicians and Garzon seemingly judged him credible and nobody has questioned or retracted the testimonies provided.

Lastly, new TB findings (seemingly backing up some of Annett’s materials): Globe & Mail

I will edit this later today. Sorry for posting this in its current unfinished form but it’s around 1,000 pages of factual documents and finishing this on my own is currently beyond me.--109.142.158.224 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with quotes, just try to summarise them. This is very helpful, thank you! You may face an uphill battle regarding point 5 (reconciliation commission) since this and Canadian Indian residential school system are heavily based in the TRC report, which I agree was somewhat of a farce. If you have not considered it, please create an account so nobody can pull the "It's an IP editor" hack (and because you do your research and could be very helpful for other topics that pique your interest). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

Noticed Floydian removed an IP edit that affixed the category "Anti-Catholicism" to this page. I actually tend to support its inclusion. First, several sources point to anti-Catholicism playing a role in the arson attacks: 1, 2, 3 (the last only discussing suspicion and coming from a source some might challenge). While other entities are facing blowback over the dead children, I think that there is at least decent enough grounds to consider anti-Catholicism an appropriate part of what this article is about, even if it's certainly not the main focus or even the sole component of a section on this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

But, by extension, should we include Anti-Anglicism, Anti-Methodism, and anti-whatever-the-United-Church-is? I only removed it because it seems like a danky rabbit hole that nobody dare venture through. Feel free to revert my change though, it's not a hill for me to die upon - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Eh. Not that interested myself. Sort of brought up the issue now in case someone (yeah me) was considering inserting the phrase "anti-Catholicism" into the body of the text. It's a touchy subject and I worry inclusion of such a perspective without additional reliable sources discussing it would be a tad too much. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible misinterpretation of a quote from Trudeau

The article implies that Trudeau thinks the arson was "understandable." However, the source provided does not tell us enough to say that he was referring to the arson. Instead, he seems to be saying that about the anger that many people have. I am wondering if the article should be edited to reflect this. This opinion piece has the full quote. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That context is important. Good catch. Please add it when you can. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Reactions

Can we summarize the reactions somehow? They seem to be disproportionately covered (as usual). We have 2500 characters about what are essentially reactions to reactions (church burnings). All we really need to say is who condemned and who supported. Focusing so much on buildings and which politician said what seems a bit distasteful given that the topic is deaths of hundreds of children. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree on this, just not sure how to go about it yet, and in a way that is easily adaptable for the future. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through both the reactions to church burnings and the iconoclasm section and trimmed them down. Any input is welcomed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Floydian. I was thinking of a much more drastic reduction, however. The reactions still constitute over half of the article prose, and I think that is neither seemly nor logical. Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Have at 'er. My reductions were aimed to preserve the sources, but if you can condense it further, go for it! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have pruned it quite heavily, Floydian, but I am satisfied with the result. Summarizing proved difficult because I could not find enough references that discuss certain reactions in general (like The Guardian does regarding church burnings). For example, I could not find a reference saying that monuments to John A. Macdonald are being removed but only articles about specific cases, and so we now have a citation overkill problem there. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna and Floydian: Would either of you find it prudential to produce a separate article detailing the spate of church fires and vandalism (not necessarily including the "iconoclasm")? I think it was right to detail more specifically the gravesites and reduce the reactions section in favor of providing the reader with a specific source on the dead children, but also believe the church burnings are notable enough in of themselves to merit an article I could whip up today or tomorrow. Any comment on such an article? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

At this point I'd say absolutely. It can be linked in the reactions section, and perhaps as a "See also:" hatnote at the top of this article. The burnings have been a weekly (sometimes twice or more) occurrence for a sustained period of time. Simply listing each of the churches and the response was more information than the gravesite discoveries. Add to that all the ongoing RCMP investigations and the conclusions that they and fire chiefs will arrive at, arrests, etc. and it becomes two very distinct, albeit closely linked, topics. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty. Wish I could contribute more to the gravesite info, but frankly that isn't my area of expertise. Will have that page up and running sometime tomorrow (Sunday). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that would make sense at this point, especially if sources can be found that dig a bit deeper into the matter, such as this Guardian article. I hope it would not be just a list of what happened and where and which politician said what about it. Such articles bore me to death. Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We should obviously also have a summary here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I'll do my best but I'm juggling some other stuff. If you want to help after my first pass, I would appreciate it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for review on related article

I have created a draft for the page 2021 Canadian church burnings at User:Pbritti/sandbox/2021 Canadian church burnings. Please contribute some time and information if you can to this project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty good. I made a tiny fix. The only concern I have is that the title is contradicted by the including of a United States section... but I'm not sure what the best method is to remedy that.

When you transfer it to mainspace, be sure to indicate in the edit summary that "Portions of this article were originally located at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites until July 24, 2021. See the history of that article for attribution." per WP:COPYWITHIN. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Investigations that found no gravesites

Hi all, I've just added a section for concluded investigations that found no gravesites, such as the one that just concluded last week at the site of the former Shubenacadie Indian residential school. I've also updated the map to include a blue colour to indicate this, since the investigation is neither underway nor were any discoveries confirmed. Moved it to the bottom of the article, since the article is ultimately about discoveries, not non-discoveries, but I feel the conclusion of the investigation is nonetheless notable and relevant enough to readers of the article that it ought to be included. James Hyett (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Flatting citation is not a different style

@Floydian: WP:CITEVAR says that citation style should not be changed, but

<ref name="IndigenousFoundations">{{cite web
 | title = The Residential School System
 | website = Indigenous Foundations
 | publisher = UBC First Nations and Indigenous Studies
 | url = http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/
 | access-date = April 14, 2017}}</ref>

is the same citation style as <ref name="IndigenousFoundations">{{cite web | title=The Residential School System | website=Indigenous Foundations | publisher=UBC First Nations and Indigenous Studies | url=http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/ | access-date=April 14, 2017}}</ref>. We can talk about the problems I fixed in the references such as listing the TRC as an author, which it's not, it's a publisher.

And for the record, it is bad behaviour to make personal attacks in edit summaries (talk about the content, not the contributor), and to use profanity when adding comments to editor's talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you change the citation style again, I will bring /you/ to ANI. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Floydian, please read what I wrote, the citation style did not change. Your incivility might result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Please fix your damage to the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And I see you got your hand slapped at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for making personal attacks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

May I flatten the references and correctly order the parameters? Would you mind explaining why they need to be expanded? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it creates walls of text that are unreadable in the edit window; this way makes it quick and easy to see the references from the forest of text. Why do you feel the need to change it? Or the "correct order" of parameters? Also I apologise for my rudeness the other night. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I to can get hot under the collar. I fully understand the frustration.

Unreadable? The content is still all there, but I suppose that flattened makes finding a particular parameter a bit more difficult.

The flattened version makes it easier to read the prose around the reference. Some editors will even colour the references differently from the prose, but the standard text editor (which we both apparently use) does not.

There have been recent additions of flattened references here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To offer an outside perspective on this debate, I will say this much: I think that the appearance of references should follow a single style within an article, so think the references should have been left as they were (Floydian convinced me of this a couple weeks back). However, the expanded format for references creates its own problems, as it makes paragraph breaks less obvious–especially for editors like me with reading difficulties. Also, the expanded format is unfamiliar to many editors and could lead to silly errors. Serious pros and cons to both but I lean towards keeping the references as they are in any given moment, meaning that the flattened references should stay but also should not have been introduced in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the extra blank line at the top of the vertical citations, which makes the paragraph breaks stand out. With regard to the errors and recent additions, I have no problem harmonising and expanding the refs; keeping this article fully sourced and maintained is my tiny attempt at reconciliation. visual editor seems to pick date formats on a whim instead of checking for a date-format template on the article, so I am constantly going through and switching Day Month Year to Month Day, Year. I generally do this daily, except when I go to my cottage every few weekends and have no attachment to technology. I'm not sure if I should continue doing that, or if it is going to be a contentious issue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You also expanded flattened references, without explanation and without justification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Consistency is a major justification. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to flatten them again. You have no supporters, only proponents for peace. Also, please learn how to indent correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any supporters for your personal preference either though... You're adding nothing to this article except pointless grief to my consistent maintenance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

First, not my preference, so please do not call it that. Second, how are the minified references being added if others do not support the format? I'm not adding anything to the article except to watch for vandalism and waiting for my vacation to end and to catch up on other edits. I do not need to add anything to an article to have an opinion that you should stop showing WP:OWNership over both the article and the expanded style. Third, you have no editors adding references in the expanded format. I suggest you get with the programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That is probably because of Visual Editor and other script-assisted reference additions, which also can't get date formats, quotation marks, or hyphenated parameters correct, nor do they follow any consistent order or use of author-vs-first/last parameters. I am not claiming any OWNership over this page, I am merely maintaining consistency. I cannot see how it is not your preference when you're insisting for it's use, and when the only reasoning you've offered for it has been "The flattened version makes it easier to read the prose around the reference." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Or, people actually prefer the minified references because they work correctly. I don't care how you cannot see how it's not your preference over a standard format preferred by most editors. Get with the programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What programme? Template:Cite_news#Usage has "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format", as does {{cite web}} (the two making up almost the entirety of the references), and every other CS1 template shows similar lists of parameters in both horizontal format. Regardless of the interpretation of why edits adding a handful of flattened references to an article that has nearly 100, this whole thing is subjective and purely cosmetic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and also assume that you have edited other articles on Wikipedia. Whats the format in them? So there is a standard. It's easier to display all parameters in a vertical format, but you'll see every single entry in the examples section is minified. Regardless of your ignoring of the common format, since you admit it's purely cosmet, and everyone knows the minified format is better, I'll flatten them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't do quite the same. Please stop trying to bully in your change to the referencing. I can tell you that all of the 95 good and featured article that I've written use vertical format, and I've never once had any complaint about it... nor here, until you raised one. I'm not going to continue responding to this pissing match, the current format should remain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to bully but point out, as you tried to do to me, that you have no support in the community. I can tell you that after years of editing I have never seen an editor not understand that vertical formatting of references is not distinct style of citing from minified formatting. By the way, you're the editor who raised the issue by reverting a tool that cleaned references up, and yes flattened them. You then and insulted me, slandered me, forum shopped and got shut down in every single location to tried to raise the issue. Get with the program. I will be fixing the parameters and minifying the references here at some point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

and I will be undoing it, again. Carry on. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in as a person that mostly uses visual editor to say that I've taken a glance at the text editor for this article, and I have to agree with Walter Görlitz here. Floydian, your behaviour in this whole thread reads really belligerently.James Hyett (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I have better things to do with my time than die on a hill over the friggen citation layout. The belligerence is quite evenly shared from both sides, but your mileage may vary. Be sure to switch half the dates back to ISO format when the purely cosmetic change that is so very much desired is implemented (since you've failed to advance any actual case besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification in summary on numbers

I have added some clarification in the summary to add additional context about the number. Previously, the section only referenced the 1,500 individuals identified in the initial survey of (I believe) 4 locations. However, since that time, additional discoveries and documents indicate that some 4,100 persons died while in the custody of the residential school system and they expect some 3,200 persons to be in unmarked graves. These numbers are referenced elsewhere in the article. In order to not provide a false impression to readers who only look over the summary, the two figures I mentioned here are now included in that paragraph. I believe this to be an appropriate change as the article is about the broader issue of residential school gravesites and not specific to the initial discovery / news article but represents a broader subject that remains subject to these continued discoveries. 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm unclear where the numbers and sourcing are located for the 4 new entries in the table, but I'm on mobile so it's hard to read. In either case, I think the figures and dates in the table need citations in a "ref" column - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Table cleanup

I've just cleaned up the 'summary of locations' table after discovering that several of the more recent entries were for schools in the US, with incorrect locations and dates attached to them. Further, there was no references column for anything. I'm going to paste the previous version of the table below, in the hopes that someone may be able to find good sourcing for the unsourced numbers (relevant rows bolded), and put them where they belong.

Summary of Residential School Grave Locations

Location	School	Graves (current estimates/discoveries)	Date
Battleford, SK	Battleford Industrial School	72	1975
Kamloops, BC	Kamloops Indian Residential School	200	May 28, 2021
Muskowekwan First Nation, SK	Muscowequan Indian Residential School	35	June 1, 2021
Regina, SK	Regina Indian Residential School	38	June 2, 2021
Brandon, MB	Brandon Indian Residential School	104	June 4, 2021
Fort Providence, NTW	Fort Providence Indian Residential School	161	June 5, 2021
Red Deer, AB	Red Deer Industrial School	65	June 8, 2021
Dunbow, AB	St. Joseph's Industrial School	39	June 23, 2021
Marieval, SK	Marieval Indian Residential School	751	June 25, 2021
Cranbrook/Ktunaxa First Nation, BC	Kootenay Island Residential School	182	June 30, 2021
Kuper Island/Penelakut Island, BC	Kuper Island Indian Industrial School	160	July 12, 2021
	Total (as of August 19, 2021)	1,807

James Hyett (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So, Regina was actually in 2018;ref1ref2

Fort Providence had a memorial established at some unknown time between the 90s and now for 161 known children that died, and is now being searched by GPR for unmarked graves;ref

Red Deer I'm finding notta;

Dunbow was a 1996 exposure due to flooding that revealed 34 students, which were reinterred nearby.ref

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh marvellous, thank you! These ought to be re-incorporated then, along with Muskowekwan, which is currently mentioned under "investigations underway" which isn't entirely accurate. Will get around to this tomorrow if I have some time. James Hyett (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Whistleblowers

The section about "Whistleblowers" is unencyclopedic and a promo for Kevin Annett, who is described in this reliable source as a "conspiracy theorist". Annett's Wikipedia article has been deleted a few times, and the sources for this section are biased, self-published, or do not confirm that Annett is a reliable source for information. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Your reliable source was already addressed in the archived talk about Annett here. It also has nothing to do with Canadian Indian residential school gravesites, which is topic of this article. 2. Also, you removed references to Annett which have nothing to do with the “reliable source” - namely, Annett’s nomination for Order of Canada; his 12-year-old Italian Wikipedia entry; and his award-winning documentary published by its producer (correct me if I’m wrong). 3. Your refusal to unarchive the existing discussion on Annett and preference to start from a blank sheet as if this topic has never been discussed may indicate a particular editorial slant which can also be seen in the selectivity of your editing on the passage on whistleblowers. 4. Why did you indicate that “this article is not on Annett”? The passage on whistleblowers is just a handful of sentences. Contrary to what you said, your editing seems to indicate that you may be specifically interested in Annett and not the topic of this article. 5. Why edit first and discuss second, not the reverse? Floydian I’d appreciate your input. 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC) 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

6. I’m especially curious why you chose to delete media references across 3 classes:

Indigenous media (do you consider it unreliable? If so, why?)

Mainstream international media (do you consider it unreliable? If so, why?)

Why do you consider a radio source established since the 1940s, part of a nationwide network and governed by an independent board unreliable?

As for Canadian mainstream media, references exist (many) but someone has to do the work, so I could understand temporary deletion of that reference until it gets properly sourced. 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC) 195.235.52.108 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and in fact I edit conflicted on the removal. I think there was too much detail on Annett, and even what's left is not properly sourced in places. The IP should stop commenting on the editor and perceived reasons for the undo and concentrate on the problems with the content. Meters (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for anybody to point out problems with the content. When they do I can make my conclusion whether their convoluted, illogical argumentation is accidental or purposeful.

Meters Precisely - some of what’s left is not properly sourced, what was (mostly) was.

Delinking Annett’s Wikipedia page in another language is counterproductive if the objective is to minimize his coverage on THIS page.

195.235.52.108 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We've both told you the same thing. This article is not about Annett. There is too much information about him, that apparently has nothing to do with this article.

I have no idea what you meant by "what was (mostly) was" in "Precisely - some of what’s left is not properly sourced, what was (mostly) was."

I also have no idea what you mean by "Delinking Annett’s Wikipedia page in another language is counterproductive if the objective is to minimize his coverage on THIS page." You again seem to be suggesting some possibly nefarious intent by the editor who made the edit. Since his article has been deleted on English Wikipedia several times it seems that he is not notable by English Wikipedia's standards, or at least was not at the time. I never saw those articles so I don't know what they contained. Linking to an article about him on a different language Wikipedia is not useful, and does not show his notability. The Italian Wikipedia's acceptance of his article says nothing about his acceptability for an English Wikipedia article, and that article is not a reliable source. If you think he is notable then please write an article about him. By the way, the fact that he was nominated for the Order of Canada does nothing for his notability. Anyone can be nominated, anyone can make a nomination, and since the Chancellery of Honours keeps nominations confidential, the nomination cannot be verified from an independent source. The information given by the weak source (just a radio show listing) can only have originated from the nominator. It's not verifiable and it has nothing to do with this article. I completely agree with the removal of this claim. Meters (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The entire "whistleblower" section is out-of-scope. This article is about gravesites; it is not about a disgraced non-notable conspiracy theorist. The section states that Kevin Annett "first publicized evidence of the deaths of indigenous children in 1995", but the fact that children died at these schools was never a secret. Readers of this article do not benefit from that section; it should be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As for why I removed the YouTube source (note: it wasn't Magnolia that did that, it was me): I did so as per WP:VIDEOREF because YouTube has no editorial oversight as to the content of that video, meaning there is no way to confirm the awards the video's description claims it won. Looking into it now, there doesn't even appear to have been a "Los Angeles Independent Film Festival" in 2006, since the LAIFF was merged with Film Independent in 2001 (and this film wasn't nominated for the Spirit Awards in 2006). Further, there is nothing to indicate that the uploader is the producer of the film (the film doesn't even have end credits), so we cannot be certain it isn't an infringement of copyright. James Hyett (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the entire section. I was going to trim it down to just a couple of well-sourced sentences once this thread settled down, but I wasn't particularly enthused about any of it. Meters (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677: “ the fact that children died at these schools was never a secret”. Seriously? Why it took until 2021 for this to boil over then? Why the official truth and reconciliation commission was so ineffectual that we needed 2021 for the ground-penetrating radar investigations to finally get funded? Referring again to Reuters calling Annett a CT BEFORE these discoveries, and in a different context, came to light does nothing good for your reputation. Neither does calling your agreement with two likeminded editors a consensus. There is currently partial consensus here.

MetersOf course there is nefarious intent on Wikipedia - from politicians editing their own articles to certain editors making a humanly-impossible number of edits. What you said here about irrelevance of editorial choices by other-language Wikipedia’s may be in line with Wikipedia’s policies but is also something that enables information control if adopted sufficiently widely.

Wikipedia should be as useful as Google to me - ideally more useful. Currently Google provides considerable coverage of Annett as a public figure. Wikipedia’s burying of this person and his research output is a shame - purely from the POV of personal convenience.

The proposed consensus storyline here is thus: Canada has had no whistleblowers on this topic since 1910s. Whistleblowers back then were fired and had to self publish. We take their claims of 50-70% mortality as credible. They deserve Wikipedia’s coverage. Annett does not. Why? Good question.

I have no interest promoting Annett or writing an English Wikipedia article for him - I read passable Italian and I’m not charitable enough.

195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC) 195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing about " nefarious intent on Wikipedia" in general. I was commenting on your "suggesting some possibly nefarious intent by the editor who made the edit " (emphasis added). Your comments are dangerously close to personal attacks. Again, The IP should stop commenting on the editor and perceived reasons for the undo and concentrate on the problems with the content. Meters (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And user:Magnolia677 did not claim that there is consensus on the issue of the Italian Wiki link. The edit summary was Consensus has not been reached to include this link; please see talk page.

To be honest, any other source would get a quick mention, but not an entire section. Without secondary sourcing to back-up claims or reinforce certain ideas, we are pushing against NPOV. That said, I've tried to remain a janitor here as it is a sensitive topic that I cannot honestly address, and I certainly do not have a historical context of writings from before I was born. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

When I wrote I was going to trim it down to just a couple of well-sourced sentences once this thread settled down, but I wasn't particularly enthused about any of it I should have clarified that as "... particularly enthused about any of it as it stands." A neutral mention with independent sources should be fine. Meters (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Mission School

An anon added Sacred Heart Mission School and incremented the counts by 161. I found https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/fort-providence-graves-1.6049005 to support the claim, but this does not appear to be part of the current search as it's been know for more than a dozen years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/mission-school-visits-fort-providence-1.5307268. I will let other editors decide if it should be added back now that there is a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say we should include it, as this article isn't just about the discoveries since Kamloops. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@James Hyett: seems to have added it with more sources. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes! You're welcome-- though I realised in adding that section that the lead now definitely needs to be rewritten, since it currently focuses on this year's discoveries.James Hyett (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I made some adjustments. I'm noticing that there is inconsistency with the capitalisation of "indigenous". I'm not sure if it should be capitalised or not, so I haven't fixed it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of "Indian"

Please don't make PC changes to historical terms such as "Indian" when used appropriately. The schools are called "Canadian Indian residential schools" See Canadian Indian residential school system#Notes on terminology Meters (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)