Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system/Archive 2

Apologies issued by June 2016

The list of apologies could be expanded to include subheadings for specific churches. I found this list in another source, and I believe some of these apologies are not covered in this article:

• •United Church of Canada (1986)
• •Oblate Missionaries of Mary Immaculate (Roman Catholic) (1991)
• •Anglican Church (1993)
• •Presbyterian Church (1994)
• •Government of Canada (2008)
• •Roman Catholic Church (2009)

--Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

May want to add following link and try to find similar acts of reconciliation.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/on-easter-sunday-bishop-completes-sacred-journey-from-alert-bay-to-victoria-1.2217925 --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Revising to obtain GA status

Hello, I'm hoping to gauge interest in working to edit, rework and expand this page in order to achieve Good Article status from it's current C-Class rating. Achieving B-Class status is likely the best first step, but given the overlap between GA criteria and B criteria, I think we can aim high out of the gate. Here is an overview of the GA criteria with notes about what needs to be done to address each point. Please feel free to add as needed - I'm not an expert on the topic (or obtaining GA status) and welcome the assistance. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well written

1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

This is where the article needs the most help from an average reader standpoint. The writing in the History section, for example, lacks a readable flow and would greatly benefit from sub-headings. It also contains redundant information that could be more clearly addressed in one spot instead of multiple locations on the page. The discussion of genocide is one example. There are multiple sources to support the discussion, but they need to be pulled together into a clearly written paragraph or sub-section. The Reconciliation attempts section is also problematic. The tense of the writing needs to be addressed, along with the framing and approach. I'm also dubious about the title and what is being implied --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with sub-headings in the History section. I would suggest "Legal [something]" or "Structure," "Daily Life" or "Conditions," and maybe one other. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment from outside reader: The lead paragraph that begins "The system had origins in pre-confederation times, but was primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until 1966, when the last federally-operated residential school was closed." needs to be revised to add that while the last federally-funded school closed in 1966, the last residential school closed in 1996. This CBC timeline (already used elsewhere and named 'Timeline') supports the info. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Appears to have been a typo. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we move the "portrayals in media/articles" tables to the end of the article so as not to obscure the two sections that are currently below it. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The sections are long enough that they may possibly merit another page..? I'm not sure about protocol on that front - maybe someone else can provide comment. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved the Portrayals section further down the page. There are examples of pages that cover the portrayal of certain groups or peoples in popular culture,123 so I think the section could be reasonably split out with a suitable lead and contextual info.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved the section to a new page due to the length of this page. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial
3. statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
4. it contains no original research; and
5. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

I have begun normalizing references, for example pulling multiple references to the TRC Executive Summary into one ref (now called TRCExec) and will continue to do so over the next few days. I will be added dead link or citation needed tags as necessary to flag where people can help out. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are new to using the named references (or references in general..!) the RefToolbar can make the experience much easier. This page has an instructional video. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

What is missing and how can we address these gaps? For example, I have already noted that there is no coverage about the conceptualization of the residential school system by Egerton Ryerson and Indian Affairs. There is also no mention of the post War of 1812 shift from colonial peoples viewing Indigenous peoples as allies in the fight against the US and France to a population to be assimilated and civilized. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the Ryerson Report, but will add more about the Bagot Report and broaden the Davin Report passage as well. --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest broadening coverage to show ongoing discussions about commemoration and heritage. For example, designating heritage sites and creating museums. For example, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/survivors-push-to-turn-former-portage-la-prairie-residential-school-into-museum-1.3367082 --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also suggest adding community events to the "reconciliation" or "healing" sections, such as the 1981 Shingwauk reunion

http://activehistory.ca/2016/06/reports-from-new-directions-in-active-history-opening-doors-gathering-communities-making-archives-active-through-events/ --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What do we think of adding a summary of the TRC findings and Calls to Action? --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of this page is the schools themselves, best practice would be to mention them to the extent needed with a link to the TRC page where more info is available. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The External links section needs to be reviewed in order to align with the established guidelines. Off the top of my head:

• Links/projects/documents referenced elsewhere in the page should be removed.
• Where possible resources that could be used to support ideas in the main body of the page should be worked in there or added to the Further Reading section.

--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned this up as best I could. Other edits or additions very much welcome.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a section about unmarked graves? If so, where? --Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think a brief mention would work in the Mortality rates section. Possibly as a level-three sub-heading? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable

1. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

One thing to keep in mind when adding images is that while photos of children at residential schools may be in the public domain the associated personal and generational trauma is not. I think it's important to be judicious in how and when images are being used without taking away from the added value of having images worked into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Indian residential school system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709021317/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080610/native_apology_080611/20080611?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080610/native_apology_080611/20080611?hub=TopStories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

TV Movie about these schools

Does anyone else remember a PBS Made-for-TV movie on "WonderWorks about these types of schools starring Annette O'Toole as one of the teachers? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@DanTD: Is it maybe one of the films captured on here? --Dnllnd (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

political correctness of "Indian"

I undid a poorly-worded and non-minor change to the lede [1]. This is a featured article and that change was not an improvement, but the idea had merit. Should we add mention of the political correctness aspect (i.e., the lack of it) of the term "Indian" and the historical and legislative reasons it is still used in placed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:32, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

An explanation about the use of Indian is beyond the scope of the page, but a pointer to information about the historical context could be a useful note. I have to admit that I'm not immediately familiar with an appropriate page to link to - does anyone else have a suggestion? --Dnllnd (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Meters:After giving it some more thought, I decided to add a brief note after the first use of Indian to explain that it has been used in keeping with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA due to it being the recognized name for the system. I also explained that the use of Indian in the rest of the page is limited to proper nouns, often official school names, and government legislation, the most relevant being the Indian Act. Text edits or revisions are very much welcomed. Thanks for flagging this for discussion.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Meters (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian Indian residential school system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://142.51.24.159/dspace/handle/10219/382
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817000148/http://www.iap-pei.ca/us-nous/us-nous-eng.php to http://www.iap-pei.ca/us-nous/us-nous-eng.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161014194728/http://www.iap-pei.ca/information/pub-eng.php?act=irssa-schedule-d-eng.php to http://www.iap-pei.ca/information/pub-eng.php?act=irssa-schedule-d-eng.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110023441/http://iap-pei.ca/information/stats-eng.php to http://iap-pei.ca/information/stats-eng.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Indian residential school system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123153104/http://nccah-ccnsa.ca/docs/fact%20sheets/child%20and%20youth/NCCAH-fs-ChildWelServCDA-2EN.pdf to http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/docs/fact%20sheets/child%20and%20youth/NCCAH-fs-ChildWelServCDA-2EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Indian residential school system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004738/http://umanitoba.ca/centres/nctr/overview.html to http://umanitoba.ca/centres/nctr/overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

We are getting lots of quote spam for an FA article.....need to paraphrase some new stuff added.--Moxy (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy:I'm not familiar with "quote spam". Do you mean there are too many quotes in the updated sections? --Dnllnd (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I assumed yes and made some revisions. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Polio Vaccine Scandal Claim

A book published last year asserts that a botched polio vaccine in an Alberta day school resulted in the deaths of 30+ children.

https://albertaviews.ca/medicine-unbundled/

"Geddes is absorbed, for example, by what he learns about rogue experiments with contaminated polio vaccines administered at a reserve day school in northern Alberta in the early 1960s. Almost all 38 students developed cancers. His archival search for incriminating evidence or bureaucratic cover-ups yields nothing."

I've got the book on order from the library to cite this properly, but for now I'm leaving this note here. Would appreciate any other leads here.

Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Murder

Also from Medicine Unbundled (pp. 58-61) comes a first-person account of her brother's mysterious death at the Kuper Island Residential School. Apparently only a few days before Richard Thomas was about to "graduate" (or come of age to discharge from the school) he was found hanging by the neck in the gymnasium. "... the Brother warned them that this is what could happen to people who talk too much." Richard had called his family the night before and said how pleased he was to come home, and "when I get out of this hellhole I'm going to tell everything." The death certificate says June 1st, 1966 (the body was found the morning of the 2nd) and death due to "strangulation." Another eyewitness reports seeing the Brother (not named in the book) carrying something heavy and wrapped in a blanket into the gym that night, after a commotion. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Very POV article

It strikes me that this whole article fails to be encyclopedic in that it is thoroughly POV.

It more judgmental than factual. Subjective rather than objective.

It assumes and accepts malevolent intent on the part of those who devised the system.

This was clearly not the case - rather it's simply an example of new, fashionable, values replacing old values.

What is seen as wrong now was seen as right and good then.

And no doubt some of it was good. What of the intended, and indeed actual, benefits to the indigenous population?

This article seems a little too earnest and a little too PC for its own good. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.170.83 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The article has undergone multiple peer reviews by Wikipedia editors, including a rigorous review of the page prior to being granted the highest quality rating on the site - Feature Article status. It is written in an encyclopedic tone in keeping with editing guidelines and contains nearly 150 verifiable references from reputable sources. It reflects the findings of a national inquiry, fully funded and accepted by the Government of Canada as true. Any suggestion that the page is heavily POV is itself a POV issue. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, any suggestion that the page is NPOV is also POV. :) (as it has no RS to prove so). Zezen (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zezen: A truly constructive contribution to claims a page reviewed multiple times by the the wider community is biased. Thank you. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy in facts

Hello,

In this wikipedia article, it states "The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996, called Gordon Indian Residential School and was located in Punnichy, Saskatchewan" but in the article entitled List of Indian residential schools in Canada, it says "The first residential school was set up in 1828 with the last residential school closing in 1997" , just wondering which is correct and why both articles do not cite the same information.

67.204.251.108 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

On a quick look, it appears that the school that closed in 1997 was not federally operated at that time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Federal Indian Day Schools and Indian Hospitals

Class action lawsuits were recently made against the federal government for Federal Indian Day Schools and Indian Hospitals, which existed for long after the last closure of the residential schools. These should be included in the article. 24.36.195.185 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

30 per cent of Indian children figure

Where does this come from? The 150,000 students figure can be cited, but neither of the citations in the article mention how this figure compares to the total number of Indian children born during the period of the school's operation (and depending on how you determine that, you could skew the percentage heavily). --Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 3 supports "one-third" of the total. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If I'm reading that footnote correctly, the lede as written is wrong - the one-third figure is not the total percentage of Indian children admitted to residental schools as compared to the total number of Indian children alive during the time period, but rather the percentage of Indian children attending residental schools at the specific point of the schools' height in the 1930s. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Page 3 of the TRC's Final Report, which is listed as a reference, states: "The federal government has estimated that at least 150,000 First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students passed through the system." --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That we can cite the 150,000 figure is irrelevant to my point, which focuses on the 30 percent claim. You cannot get a percentage out of one figure. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The text has been revised to address precision. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Attack

This page is a WP:ATTACK page. It entirely portrays the Indian residential school system in a negative tone, in contravention of WP:NPOV. 122.60.40.100 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Take it to the NPOV notice board then. You will definitely be told otherwise, however. There may be problems here or there on the page -- I haven't read the whole thing yet -- but there is no question the schools really were that bad and the trauma really is that profound. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words

Probably because there are so many quotes and paraphrases of government reports, there is a lot of passive tense in this article. For example, "it was decided that" obscures who exactly did the deciding. This is always undesirable from the point of view of clarity, but is especially pernicious on this topic. The treatment of these children was deliberate, not something like weather that nobody would have been able to change. So I am not doing it to be mean, but I will be flagging these sentences with who templates. All that is needed to fix these is to change the sentence to say who it was that believed/decided/did these things. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. This article was worked on over the course of a year and some of the more passive tense language is the result of some editors during the GA and FA review processes pushing back against more definitive language. You can see examples of the same type of push back in other recent comments on this page. That said, I agree that there are instances where more precise language would ameliorate the page and would encourage you to introduce those types of changes as you see fit. --Dnllnd (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Loss of language section

Re this sentence: "Many students spoke the language of their families fluently when they first entered residential schools." Isn't that a given? Most people speak their maternal language rather fluently. Is there any new information contained in that sentence? Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)c

It's not necessarily a given, particularly if the students were attending schools from areas that were already heavily inhabited by English speaking settlers or had previously attended church or government run day schools. Further, there are still people who don't know or understand the extent of the policies aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples into Canadian society. Sometimes seemingly obvious sentences serve an important purpose - this seems like a good example of one. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I asked before I edited, so it's still there. Thanks for the answer. Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"They suffered from malnourishment and harsh discipline that would not have been tolerated in any other school system"

Is this explicitly stated in the cited sources? It seems extremely implausible to me, considering the sheer number of child abuse inquiries and the length of time the schools operated for. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See for example the TRC report, which quotes Clink as remarking on an instance of abuse that it “would not be tolerated in a white school for a single day in any part of Canada.”, or Project of Heart, which states that children who misbehaved faced disciplinary measures "that would never have been tolerated in non-Aboriginal schools". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are cited for the claim though (and make rather different claims anyway), and more importantly this is such a large claim we need better sources than a quotation of someone in 1895 and an article that uses as evidence abuse that occured in other school/childcare systems. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, have you read the Miller and Milloy books that passed FA review and are used as citations for the statement to confirm they don't back up the claim? And what are you suggesting as a proposed text revision? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not, but I am not buying a book for the sake of a Wikipedia argument. Precisely how necessary the line is is debatable, but in any case I feel the statement could only be comfortably made if they are compared to specifically Canadian, ordinary (that is, non-industrial etc.) schools. Anything further and you run up into, if nothing else, Indian boarding schools in the US. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the sources cited for this in front of me at the moment, but the examples I provided (one of which I see has now been added) are far from unique in making claims like that, without the qualifications you suggest. I'm not aware of any sources comparing disciplinary methods in Canadian residential schools vs US Indian boarding schools, or vs industrial etc; if there are such sources we could potentially add that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The TRC report is quoting somebody else when it mentions the claim, and converting "any white school" to "any other school system" is highly dubious (as perhaps is converting "punishment" into "discipline"). This still does not address the problem of having the line in there in the first place, since the claim that they were the most abusive school system in the entirety of world history is obviously ridiculous absent multiple detailed comparative studies; if we want to emphasize how bad they were we can just write something like "They suffered from severe malnourishment and extremely harsh discipline". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's saying it was "the most abusive among the contemporary Canadian school systems" not "in the entire world history". Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that it was very far from that. Schools used to be harsh, still are. But few have been downright genocidal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The text does not say that. If it is meant to say that it should be changed. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I added Canadian to the sentence. Discussing this any further given that not everyone has actually read the relevant citations or is familiar with the body of literature about the topic (including the final reports of the TRC) at a time when a mass graves of unidentified children's bodies was discovered is bordering on offensive. --Dnllnd (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I read the relevant sections of the sources that I actually had access to. Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"most" and "worst" are very hard to prove. On the other hand, I have an impeccable reference that children were deliberately malnourished, so lemme read this over and add that in. Elinruby (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about the nutrition experiments, they are already in the article - twice, actually. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Subsequently noticed this; you are right. I have since seen some other allegations but I don't have sources for them at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure section needs expansion

At present the closure section focuses on a few instances of residental schools coming under indigenous control. It does not explain why the vast majority of the schools closed in the 1960s and 70s. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eldomtom2: Agreed. This TRC report addresses the closures in the "The road to closure, 1969" section that begins on page 69. The closures were tied a chance in government policy, that resulted in the government taking over control and operations of the schools, which in turn led to a transition to day schools or residences for students attending school elsewhere. Page 3 of the same report also offers a short summary: "Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were the major denominations involved in the administration of the residential school system. The government’s partnership with the churches remained in place until 1969, and, although most of the schools had closed by the 1980s, the last federally supported residential schools remained in operation until the late 1990s." --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Quote without attribution

In the first paragraph there’s the quote "to kill the Indian in the child” that isn’t attributed. If it can’t be attributed to someone it shouldn’t be here.50.71.206.201 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It is attributed later in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be attributed on first reference. But it *is* a real quote by someone specific, seen it many times. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case the quotation is being used to demonstrate how multiple people have articulated the purpose of the system - there isn't a lone speaker. The phrase originated from an American military official and has since been reused to describe the CIRSS. I've added a note explaining the source of the quote in the History section. That said, a common pattern in your careful review of the page over the past week has been tagging statements that need support without acknowledging that there are, in some cases, multiple references at the end of statements being flagged - this one such example. I stated as much on my talk page and will say it again here: the page has and maintains FA status. It has undergone extensive review, and multiple times at that. The information presented wasn't simply added to the page without careful consideration for how it would be read, assessed and interpreted. There is absolutely room for improvement, and those improvements are welcome, but I hope we can direct our time and energy to gaps in coverage or lack of clarity rather than a continued granular review of issues that, for the most part, are already addressed in the supporting references --Dnllnd (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a fair comment. However, my concern is that the use of passive tense and euphemism, while appropriate for CYA in a government report, obscures the scale of the harm done. This type of granular examination is how I generally start my process. Yes, it is frequently annoying to people who have put time into an article, but the feedback I have gotten is that the process does improve readability overall. So if I have flagged something that is cited at the end of a sentence, then fine; simply remove the flag and say that this is why in the edit statement. And, ok, my bad, if that happened. I do admit mistakes when I make them. However, it sounds to me like you have had some GA reviewers who could have used a deeper dive into the MoS. You are also showing signs of WP:OWN. On the other hand, I am done with the part that involves acquainting myself with the text and the facts, and will be doing references and updates next. But while I am familiar with residential schools in other (US) contexts, I lack your detailed knowledge of the TRC history; I hope we can work together on this in a cooperative matter. I usually work on bad machine translation, but jargon to English is also a translation problem. Consider me an intelligent uninvolved editor who wants to upgrade this to GA and has been doing similar work for 15 years. Worth listening to, if not always correct. Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: WP:OWN is a pretty serious accusation given that the bulk of our exchanges have consisted of me answering questions you've raised and, in turn, making improvements based on your feedback. Can you indicate which type ownership behaviour I'm displaying so that we can be clear about what you're taking issue with? --Dnllnd (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, I believe that WP:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply here. The first reference remark is based on the policy for abbreviations. The reader should not have to hunt further down the page to find out where a quote comes from. That said, I haven't looked at your note, and it may well address this week n a satisfactory manner. But it is not a ridiculous quibble as you seem to believe. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Can you explain your focus on getting the page Good Article status, given that it already has Feature Article status? You've repeatedly mentioned wanting to achieve GA status but have yet to acknowledge that's already been achieved. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

can you explain why you think that the article does not need improvement? As for OWN, can you explain your adamant insistence on not citing your scare quotes? Your sources do not in fact support them, as you mention in your own note, which for some reason is on the second mention, not the first. Why do you think this is correct? I do not, actually, believe that FA=GA,and feel there is definitely room for improvement in this article. Perhaps I am mistaken about FA, and you will be able to point me at something that says so, but your overall dismissive manner makes me doubt you will try. The fact that this FA review resulted in additional euphemism, according to you, certainly makes me question the process. In any event (/me stares) it is not unusual to see people who want to write in bureaucratese and academese. But I do see a pattern of not seeing the MoS and NPOV fails. I want to improve the article, don't you? I'll get back to you with a specific explanation of the MoS issues later. I am working on supporting articles right now. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful context. The length of the page obviously resulted in issues being missed during the original GA and FA reviews. Perhaps it makes sense for you to submit the page for another GA and FA review given your concerns about quotations and adherence to the manual of style. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the article's status, except that I personally would not have awarded it. But. I don't do these reviews and don't want to, and you seem justifiably proud of the status. So I don't suggest doing that; seems like you may open yourself up to explaining all over again why 'survivor' is not a loaded word in this context (for example), without necessarily getting more than very incremental improvement. Let's just improve what can be improved, is my thought. You don't need the approval of a committee to edit the article. Specifics on the quote issue below. Elinruby (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You cannot submit an article that is currently FA to another FA candidacy; if the article is not believed to be of FA standards, the venue to address that is Featured Article Review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the note about the source of the "kill the Indian in the child" quote up to the first reference in the lead - thanks for flagging that. Placing it later in the page was an error on my part. I haven't been able to figure out how to reuse the same note for when the quote shows up again later in the page.. I'm not as familiar with note markup as I am reference markup.. I'll poke around and see if I can't figure it out but would appreciate help if you or anyone else knows how to do it. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an improvement, thanks. After spending a happy day in the MoS section on quotes yesterday, I actually think you should cut it altogether, though, because I don't think it can be properly attributed. Let's discuss that. But first a bit of housekeeping: that unidentified American general in note 4 is Sheridan. He denied saying it however.

Let's keep in mind that this is an *extremely* upsetting topic, and take great care as we discuss the dehumanization that took place not to either endorse it or gratuitously be graphic about it. Attributing "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" to Sheridan would be an improvement, however it is a slap in the face to anyone Indigenous, can we agree on that? It does give the context for Pratt's statement, and yes, would be historically accurate if you mention that Sheridan denied saying it, but in itself it is peripheral to residential schools in Canada. Also, the Pratt quote in the note does not match the words in quotes in the article. The words in quotes in the article do match the words in your references, but your references do not attribute them either, and it isn't the TRC saying this or the BBC saying this. The unattributed quote appears to be mangled version of what Pratt said while agreeing with another very racist statement.

I do have a suggestion. Rather than going down this tangled path of attribution and repeating (twice) in Wikivoice what should never have been said at all, let us show the dehumanization another way. I created Brandon Indian Residential School yesterday and in the course of doing so encountered a quote from one of the chiefs along the lines of "they wanted to rip the Indian out of the child". I don't remember the name, but one was given, and I can probably find it again. Using this instead would simplify attribution, provide roughly the same information, and put an Indigenous voice in the lede of an article that imho sorely lacks them. LMK. Elinruby (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Dnllnd (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok good. I have reached my wikilimit for the morning, but I will give some thought to how exactly to do this. Or feel free to do this yourself, if you prefer. Since this *is* the lede, I am assuming that we should discuss? Let's start a separate thread for that, though, since we are reaching agreement nested in the middle of a thread with multiple detours. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is where I saw it yesterday, but Google offered me this, attributed to a named elder: https://panow.com/2012/01/16/sask-residential-school-survivors-share-experiences/

You can do this by naming the note - see the documentation for {{refn}} (search for named references). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FA is considered a higher level of article quality than GA. See WP:ASSESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like a link for that, if you don't mind. No doubt you are right, since you participated in the process. But I would still like a link. Also, promoting it four years ago does not mean it's a good article still. I am sorry if I sound exasperated, but I have had to explain that quotes are supposed to reflect the exact language in the source, which this does not, and this editor thinks that this is ok because the article had an FA review four years ago, in which the editor chose to disregard exactly this scare quote issue. None of the sources provide attribution either, nor do they match the quoted language. And how many edits since then? Check the editor's talk page, I went there to explain this to him/her to save some embarrassment all around. I will paste the links to MoS here as well as well if necessary. You cannot cannot cannot repeat a racist trope in Wikivoice, especially if it doesn't match your sources. I can't believe I am getting an argument about what is a quotation. Furthermore, this suffers from way too many lengthy quotes and primary sources. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You mean you want a link to the review? Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system/archive1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I read that. All of it. This is why I know the scare quotes were brought up at the time, and yet here we are. I am asking you to substantiate that FA>GA. Not that it really matters. MoS is still MoS and NPOV is still NPOV, no matter whether it got a gold star four years ago or not. I am taking a break from this ridiculous thread now. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The comment you were replying to included a link to WP:ASSESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Really? I am pretty sure that that's a link to the assessment process for *this* article. But fine. You are not required to answer questions, I suppose. It certainly feels like nobody is answering mine. Going back to working on supporting articles now. Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a link to the guideline on assessment processes for all articles, indicating the hierarchy of quality. If that's not what you're looking for, you will need to clarify your question. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Um, no it's not, lol. The comment I replied to contains a link to the assessment process for *this* article. Look again ;) But I'm over it. I asked for my own edification, and you seem a bit confused. I'll dig it up later sometime. I don't care very much, but your response tells me much. Elinruby (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources

• https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/06/01/news/nova-scotia-residential-school-grounds-searched-unmarked-graves-children-bodies -- does meet RS Elinruby (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://www2.uregina.ca/education/saskindianresidentialschools/indian-residential-schools-in-saskatchewan/see

• Mission BC: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/four-year-hunt-ends-in-arrest/article713735/

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wlfn-site-search-1.6064777/ --williams lake

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-survivors-share-their-stories-after-recent-discovery-of-childrens-remains-at-former-kamloops-residential-school-1.5452209 - good reaction quotes

• Another: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/3/24/just-another-indian-surviving-canadas-residential-schools Long feature focusing on one survivor of one school who became a knowledge keeper. Mention of molestation and long long discussion of the alienation of children from their parents and the long-term effects of being taught one is a "dirty savage". Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://globalnews.ca/news/7977208/marieval-residential-school-unmarked-graves/ - this one has the final tally for the Saskatchewan find. - Erik Braaten

Shouldn't this say government-funded?

"Many of the government-operated residential schools were run by churches of various denominations," Elinruby (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I made this change Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Babies born of rape

I have seen this story attributed to a specific speaker at a CBC Town Hall during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission period. I am not quite sure how to verify this sourcing, but I believe the story may be citable if the above is correct. It DOES of course require a source, so it wasn't *wrong* to remove it, but on a topic where many voices have been silenced or unheard, may I suggest that it would be better to start a talk page topic about such statements rather than dismissively reverting them without an explanation. That said, there were other problems with the statement besides the lack of attribution. One, the closely matching account was about ONE baby, dressed in pink, by a woman who said she was an eyewitness. "Many" is unsupported, as far as I know. Two, nobody gets pregnant from rape by nuns. The account I saw said "priest", and as I recall it named him. I will attempt to track down the details. Elinruby (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

https://youtube/30NCpvvVx98

Date of interview supposedly July 8, 2008 Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction, the interview was later and is different than the town hall. I did get through the paywall on a (relatively) local paper, to find this account summarized: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/chilling-accounts-116525378.html Link also discusses unmarked graves at the school. Elinruby (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby The article makes difficult reading. I think it may be citable, but I think one might prefer stronger reliability. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not certain what to do about it. I think the clip on YouTube is genuine, but have not been able to locate in on the CBC archives, which would be a good second RS, and I did try pretty hard. The local newspaper may or may not have been ruled RS, but it unquestionably is, for this. I will take another shot at this in a while; it's upsetting reading and I am having to take it in chunks. I agree that it would be best to have at least one more RS for this. My primary point however is that such statements should be discussed, not dismissed. Elinruby (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

agreed. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

the Internet Archive has another similar article from a Prince Albert publication. I have not investigated reliability yet. Meanwhile, I am not advocating including this at this point. The school itself does not seem to have a Wikipedia article, but here is a source for unmarked graves there: [beta.ctvnews.ca/local/regina/2021/6/1/1_5451477.html]

A problem with this account is that the eyewitness claims that the girl whose baby was thrown into the furnace was 7 years old. I don't think we can say that's absolutely impossible but combined with such a dramatic claim, namely throwing a live baby into a furnace in front of witnesses (which is a very different allegation than a dead baby), I think common sense suggests that we need to treat the story as unverified. I think trying to locate the story on a CBC or other mainstream media platform is misguided because that alone would not resolve what warrants skepticism here. A second eyewitness would do more to bolster the story than just where it's found.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source for more than one baby going into furnace:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/world/canada/mass-graves-residential-schools.html

Arson and Vandalism of Church Properties and Historical Monuments in 2021

While it remains an ongoing event, there ought to be a brief mention of the arson and vandalism of numerous church properties as well as historical monuments such as statues of Queen Victoria following the location of gravesites in 2021. While the momuments are largely in urban centers and have largely symbolic value, many of the churches reside on indigenous lands, and therefore their destruction directly harms the indigenous communities impacted by the residential school system. These violent actions are a significant offshoot of the truth and reconciliation process that must be mentioned to accurately reflect the directly-related current of events through the present day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstensberg (talk • contribs) 05:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Added Sub-heading 2 for Apologies Roman Catholic Church

Added sub-heading 2 for Roman Catholic Church apologies since the Roman Catholic Church as a whole did not apologise but various autonomous involved groups apologised. SanLeone (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Added blockquote for Chief Cadmus Delorme

Added blockquote for Chief Cadmus Delorme to avoid any attempts to mitigate or manipulate his statement.SanLeone (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Truth and Reconciliation Sources and Graphs

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Reports are Public Domain. I added the graphs from the What We Have Learned report. The TRC also provides a list of sources on their website. SanLeone (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a similar proposal at the talk page Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School - I believe it would be a good idea to create a new page for the unmarked graves found at Kamloops and now SK with something to the effect of Unmarked grave sites at Canadian Indian residential schools. Thoughts? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries was created today. Judith Sunrise (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

good idea Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

TB prevalence

The article is slightly misleading. It implies that TB was acquired in the schools and that that is what PH Bryce's report says.

But he actually says something quite different:

THE STORY OF A NATIONAL CRIME BY P. H. BRYCE (1922)

(a) Tuberculosis was present equally in children at every

age ; (b) In no instance was a child awaiting admission to school
found free from tuberculosis ; hence it was plain that infection
was got in the home primarily

In other words every single child waiting to join the schools (in 1907)already had TB before they went in. Whilst Bryce's mortality figures include those who died after they had left school.

TB was an absolute scourge, often fatal, and was endemic amongst the Indian population at the time Bryce was writing. Bryce rightly thought conditions at the schools were inadequate to deal with this problem. But it is not clear if the mortality rate at that time would have been any lower if the children had simply stayed at home.

I can verify with sources if need be. TB was brought into schools, and often the waiting list had a full fledged TB list. This was circa 1920/30. Antibiotics changed this and by the 1940s it disappears. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

please do verify with sources. I was under the impression from secondary sources that many children caught TB in overcrowded dorms, but am open to considering whether some overworked reporter assumed, as with "mass grave". But if you want an edit you should definitely supply sources. Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure given the huge time span that it was a see-saw, but that's just my thought. Anyways, here's a good dissertation on the topic as a whole that mentions it. End of page 8 and into page 9. Making Poverty: A History of On-reserve Housing Programs, 1930-1996 (UVIC link for credibility) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Who tags

I have had this discussion with more than one person on their talk page, but as a general public service announcement: the who tag flags passive tense, or what Wikipedia calls "weasel words". For instance "It was believed that the children would get a better education" begs the question of who believed this exactly. Government? Schools? Churches? Parents? If there is a reference at the end of this, well and good. References are important, and would in this case help document the existence of the belief. However, it is important to avoid hand-waving when it comes to the responsibility for atrocities that are still being denied today. Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

editors are invited to comment. I believe that everyone editing the article is acting in good faith, but there are still significant issues with the article Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

PAnow appears to be a reliable source for local news

Since it has come up in Google results a couple of times, I decided to look into this. I don't see an explicit corrections policy, but there is a list of staff and a means to contact them. I am not sure whether it is online only; I have never been to Prince Albert. There is a statement of editorial policy:

We strive to achieve the highest ethical standards in all that we do. Our newsroom abides by the RTNDA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and follows the Canadian Press Stylebook.

It seems small but so is Prince Albert -- a little over thirty-five thousand according to our Wikipedia page on the city. Seems to be a decent small-town news paper. Anyone have any objection to this determination? Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I lived in P.A. for a few years, my parents still do. Its basically become the go to source for city news (ctv stopped doing local broadcasts for p.a., and cbc never did) - Erik Braaten

thank you. Elinruby (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

On July 11 Nikkimaria removed around 7,500 characters from the article within less than 1 hour. A cursory glance at just one of those edits (of around 15 altogether), on mortality rates, revealed what looks like an effort to "dedramatize" or perhaps remove context and useful leads from the issue, purging not opinions but referenced numbers (!) from the article. Another glance at the article edit history revealed that Nikkimaria and SanLeone are the two most active editors of the article (for whatever reasons). I do not have the time to go through 7,500+ character removal by Nikkimaria to see whether every edit is objectionable or not. Clearly, the article currently reflects not the Neutral POV but slants towards the POV of its super-editors. I do not know how to solve this. If I were Nikkimaria I would refrain from block-deletes, SanLeone from block-contributions (5,000 characters in one go) and open the space to other contributors. Where does commitment end and narrative control begin? I apologize in advance if my point is offensive - we all try to make Wikipedia better, and some are more committed than others. --109.140.79.8 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@109.140.79.8 my primary contributions to this article have been: apologies from Churches, Government sectors, and Universities; Government funding including the industrial system, and burial policy; and TRC Graphs and photos. I believe I contributed with a neutral POV and am open to contrary evidence and correction. In circumstances where the source language seemed bias, I directly quoted. I agree that @Nikkimaria deletions of entire sections without talkpage discussion is concerning ex. Calls for Pope Francis to apologise, RC apology subheaders, and Indian Affairs Burial Policy etc... SanLeone (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

They largely reflect two categories: disagreement with recent undiscussed block contributions, and response to concerns from another editor about excessive quotation. If there is something specifically concerning to the IP, I would invite them to clarify what that is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In regards to block-contribs they were for severely lacking points, most were contentious so I added direct quotes to mitigate manipulation. For apologies some said "On MMMDDYYYY X apologised" while others gave details to the apologies and reception. I added these details for the major parties. For funding, it previously was of the lines of the gov underfunded the schools. I added the TRC's explanation of the severity of the underfunding. I do not see my contributions as being WP:UNDUE. But am open to discussion.SanLeone (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Is 109.140.79.8 the same as Elinruby? SanLeone (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not 109.140.79.8 but possibly the editor mentioned as complaining about quotations was me, as I have done so. A lot of the quotes were fairly inane in my opinion, although given that people are still asking for apologies I recognize that it may be important to include them in some form. Elinruby (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah some of the "apologies" were weak. Susan Manitowabi specified the difference in receiving and accepting an apology. Refusal to accept meaning there was still work/reconciliation needed. I wanted to better express this sentiment but couldn't think of anything appropriate. SanLeone (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Modern reactions

I am not finding this section at all. I want to add the op-ed by Kenney, whom I despise, btw, but who is definitely notable and imho part of the problem. Still looking. Can somebody shed some light? I have been very distracted by Lytton relief efforts and have been mostly away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks.

I still think this article misleadingly presents the TRC report as solution, but am happy to help fix this by small steps. Elinruby (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby I concur that notable figures' opinions should be added and with the misrepresentation of the TRC report. What steps are you considering? I believe adding current progress on reconciliation would be beneficial ex. the progress of the 94 calls to action (or lack thereof). MP Jody Wilson-Raybould is a notable outspoken figure for the lack of meaningful progress for reconciliation that we may consider. SanLeone (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that another section is called for at a minimum. Going through the calls to action seems like a good way to update the article as it stands, but this still views the schools through the lens of the TRC report. It would still be progress, but the fact is, the report has its own article. Ideally I would like to see less bureaucratese and more indigenous voices. This would entail considerable rewriting however, so it would probably be good to look at structure first. For instance, how important are the apologies six years later? I am asking. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby I agree that another section should be added or another page created. Two out of the three commissioners, including the chair, were indigenous (Murray Sinclair, Willie Littlechild). However, it is still a government commission and there is a general lack of indigenous voices in the article. Wilson-Raybould is an indigenous leader, who also announced she would not run for re-election. What point in time are you referencing when you say "six years later"? I think all the apologies from involved parties are relevant, even the ones coming out now. SanLeone (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant the one from after the report came out. The thing is, the report already has its own article. Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue I have with "Modern reactions" vs "Apologies" is that what Kenney had to say was definitely not an apology, it was a rant about "cancel culture" Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Last Residential School in Canada

It seems there is a some confusion surrounding when the last residential school closed. There have been 3 contenders over the past few days: Kivalliq Hall, Marieval Indian Residential School, and Gordon’s Indian Residential School.

- Kivalliq hall closed in 1995, as seen on page 3 in the Memorandum of Judgement attached in this article  : https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/rankin-inlet-kivalliq-hall-dismiss-1.4767608

- Marieval School closed in 1997; however, it transferred control to the Cowessess Band in 1981, so is not classified as a residential school after that point.

- Gordon's school closed in 1996, as indicated in the following sources : https://www2.uregina.ca/education/saskindianresidentialschools/gordons-indian-residential-school/ ; https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools

Per article 12 Section 12.01(2)-b of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement: a residential school is an institution in which "Canada was jointly or solely responsible for the operation of the residence and care of the children resident there." Ref: https://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/IRS%20Settlement%20Agreement-%20ENGLISH.pdf

As of 1981, Marieval did not classify, which indicates Gordon's was the last Residential School operating in Canada.

I've made the changes to the article to reflect this, but if I've made a mistake anywhere please let me know.

Sgoilear (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Older sources support 1996 because of changes in recognition; many newer sources agree that Kivalliq Hall closed in 1997. For example: "En 1997, le pensionnat de Kivalliq Hall, à Rankin Inlet, est le dernier au pays à fermer ses portes". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In Kamloops, Not One Body Has Been Found

By Professor Jacques Rouillard Special to THE DORCHESTER REVIEW. Jacques Rouillard is professor emeritus in the Department of History at the Université de Montréal.

https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/in-kamloops-not-one-body-has-been-found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.8.41 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering conditions at the schools and how the bodies were probably buried Not One Body Being Found is not surprising. And I find the posts at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School#The Dorchester Review to be quite illuminating on this source. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

S2Cid

In [2] this edit, Nikkimaria has deleted s2cid's which I think were added by citationbot. I'm not sure whether that was intentional or incidental to another part of the edit. Also I'm not sure what S2Cid's are, but I think more information in refs is better than less so I'd be inclined to put them back in. What do others think? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It was intentional - the links don't provide any benefit in this case, and the citations are complete without them. What is your rationale for putting them back? Given that you're not sure what they are, I don't anticipate readers would know either. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. That's probably fine to leave them out, then. Reading about s2cid, apparently it's a system to provide a one-sentence summary of an article. I think that would perhaps be useful, but clicking on the link I don't see any one-sentence summary. I don't know how to find it if there is one. I suppose some readers would know what they are and some wouldn't. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Last residential school?

According to [3], quote: "The Gordon Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, closed in 1996. It was the last federally-funded residential school in Canada." Nikolaih^☎️📖 03:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is now outdated; see explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)