Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system

Latest comment: 29 days ago by 2605:8D80:5A0:500A:39F1:E088:8D07:91F6 in topic Standard of proof
Featured articleCanadian Indian residential school system is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2017.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
August 20, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 29, 2021.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 11, 2011, June 11, 2014, June 11, 2015, June 11, 2016, June 11, 2018, and June 11, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

1948 is wrong date for end of compulsory attendance at residential schools

edit

Compulsory attendance did not end in 1948 (see Indian Act); Haig-Brown reference cited doesn't say it did, either. Deleted. 2001:569:FD3B:1600:C578:48CE:B32A:95CF (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you believe to be the correct date, and based on what sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Literally thousands of sources for the date Moxy-  02:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Then feel free to provide a source with the correction instead of merely asserting that it exists somewhere out in the ether when you’re making the claim to its existence and claiming that there is an error present here. The burden is on you to provide a source for the claim. Your Friend From 1914 (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The TRC obviously 2001:56A:78B5:3000:D36:52FF:6388:284B (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not to my knowledge. Could you be more specific? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8636:CAF2:B9D:31C7 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Standard of proof

edit

does this article have some standards for proof and fact that are different from the rest of wikipedia.

How much of this article is based off of ONE DOCUMENT CREATED BY POLITICIANS?

Some of the statements in that report are based on a single witness or even secondhand informa does this article have some standards for proof and fact that are different from the rest of wikipedia. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:D36:52FF:6388:284B (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There does seem to be a whiff of melodrama around some of the wording. However, it's very minimal and doesn't justify your mass deletions of sourced material. -- MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
That material is not sourced, it's alleged. Part of the TRCs mandate was to record the allegations and words of indigenous people affected without ANY JUDGEMENT regarding the truth or accuracy of those statements. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8636:CAF2:B9D:31C7 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
understand? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We aren't here to form opinions, only to follow what the sources say. Floydian τ ¢ 00:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
That is what the sources say. 2605:8D80:5A0:500A:39F1:E088:8D07:91F6 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply