Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School

Secewpemc students only?

Just checking - the article says it was Secwepemc children; typically residential schools had multi-ethnic student populations, e.g. Williams Lake, Mission/St Mary's/Alert Bay. Could there not have been Nicola or Nlaka'pamux or Lillooet or Okanagan students at this rez school?Skookum1 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that also. Will try to look this up Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that we don't know. The Kamloops band is going to try to identify them however. Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a list of home communities, will find it again and try to work at least some of it in. I didn't recognize all of them, but Nicola and Lillooet were in there, and three communities in the Fraser Canyon that are, I believe, Sto:lo -- Union Bar, Hope, and Spuzzum. Elinruby (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Home Communities of Students

Neskainlith, North Thompson, Kamloops, Pavilion, Penticton, Adam's Lake, Bonaparte, Fountain, Douglas L., Okanagan, Quilchena, Shulus, Little Shuswap, Coldwater, L. Nicola, Bridge R. Enderby, Deadman's Cr., Hope, Leon's C., Cayoose, Salmon R., Canoe C., Lillooet, Mount Currie (Lilwat Nation), D'Arcy (Nquatqua), Seabird Island, Skwah, Kamloops, Union Bar, Head of L., Deroche, Spuzzum, Shalalth, Spalumcheen, Osoyoos Indian Band. (https://collections.irshdc.ubc.ca/index.php/Detail/entities/46) Elinruby (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added info about some of the additional locations students were originally from. More work likely required.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

News article on 200 bodies found at the school

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/335241/Remains-of-215-children-found-at-former-residential-school-in-British-Columbia#335241

May 26, 2021 article on 200 child bodies buried at the school. Questions

1. What church denomination ran the school?
2. What records are there of the children deaths?
3. Is there a past government inquiry of the school?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:4d07:2940:1f2e:7d97 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

According to this CNN article, it was run by the Catholic Church from its opening until the 1960s. (see https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/world/children-remains-discovered-canada-kamloops-school/index.html). A report was done in 2015 by the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission which reported on issues of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. The report estimates 4000 children died but there was no mention about the records documenting the deaths. Though the article does not talk about a new investigation, I imagine with the finding of the bodies, there will be an additional investigation. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

reports states that 4000 children died in the NATIONWIDE SYSTEM, i believe, not in this one school alone! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@66.30.47.138 Thank you for clarifying that, as I was wondering how large the enrollment was. Are there any figures on the total enrollment over the period? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of bodies found in the mass graves

I think I'm having a hard time understanding this new information because there doesn't seem to be a timeline for when these children had died. The school was around from 1890 to 1978 so I've been trying to find more information on when these people died - was this a mass grave from a single event or was this a mass grave used over the many years the school was in operation? I think that would help add a lot of context to the section of the article.

I'll continue looking at sources if I can find it.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a National Post article that comes up if you Google "Kamloops residential school", titled Why did so many children die...I had to take break after reading it, but based on that it was lack of any medical care, tuberculosis, respiratory ailments in winter, etc etc. And I have seen at least one interview with survivor, elsewhere I think, about another child who was struck, and then disappeared. So based on that I'm thinking no one single event, just enormous disdain and neglect. Hope that helps. Let us know though, all I know is what I read. Elinruby (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak in this particular case, but in similar cases such as former orphanages in Ireland or many "poorhouses" throughout the Commonwealth, these graves were basically potter's fields where the bodies were buried informally over a long period of time. However I suspect with how recent this news is, we won't get any details for some time. I haven't seen anything in news coverage that specifies this was a single-event mass burial, and I'd be very surprised if it turned out that way, although it's possible that a multiple were buried at the same time in the case of events like epidemics. Julius177 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Kúkpi7 Casimir has been clear that investigation is ongoing with the Royal BC Museum and the Tk'emlúps band into whether these children's deaths were recorded by the school, and that the recent news is indeed sparse so that the word can get out. I don't know when we'll know for certain, but I think Julius177's inclination above is correct. Here is the NP article Elinruby mentioned above, by the way. Do take care when reading it. James Hyett (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah - so this info puts a lot more information thank you. Official death records are ranging from 1919 to 1964. I think I will attempt to make a reporting of this information in the subsection to provide further context - and with the caveat that investigations are still ongoing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

215 individual unmarked graves holding remains of children, some as young as 3, were found in Kamloops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.125.44 (talk • contribs)

This is not a "mass grave". The news publications using that terminology are engaging in inflammatory story telling. It's 215 unmarked graves. The sources using that terminology should be removed from this article because they simply contribute to hysteria and are a lie. See https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/indigenous-groups-grapple-with-next-steps-after-215-unmarked-graves-found-1.5454157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs)

This change has been made. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

215 bodies in a grave site over the span of 85 years, through several outbreaks including the spanish flu.... 215 is not unusual. I suspect hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Jumping to Conclusions

215 deaths and graves in 85 years through several outbreaks including the spanish flu. Ahem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs)

Agree, that is exactly what I thought. 215 in 79 years (1890-1969) on a school population of what? When diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough, tuberculosis, and of course flu were carrying off children everywhere in droves? Was the school death rate higher than the death rate for children who remained on the rez in their parents' care? Were sickly children sent to the school because they got better medical care there? Many questions to be answered, but nobody seems to be asking them. Whether the school was good policy or not is a completely separate question, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've refrained from responding here for a while, but seeing a second comment in this section I feel compelled to. Yes, some of these children probably died from the diseases mentioned, but does that make their deaths any less tragic? I can fairly confidently assert that South Kamloops Secondary School, and its predecessor St. Louis' College, operational in the same area around the same time as this Indian Residential School, did not bury hundreds of its pupils in unmarked graves. How on earth can you say that nobody is asking questions about the circumstances of their deaths, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada devoted a whole section of their final report to "Missing Children and Unmarked Burials"? This kind of denialism in the face of overwhelming evidence of historical racialized violence has no place here. James Hyett (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Child Mortality rate was > 250 per 1000 births in 1890 era. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/

Look at the chart. Deaths in childhood are now rated at 5 per thousand. Back then and as late as 1915 death rate for children was 270 deaths per thousand. If you, in your ignorance, think that the grave yard in Kamloops is rare, then you need to visit ANY grave yard older than 150 years old. In Nova Scotia, inhabited by whites for 500 years, there are thousands of unmarked child graves. eg Mount Olivette in Halifax. History is replete with mass graves. Burials for commoners was not treated as we treat burials today. This story is revisionism, stacked upon ignorance, spiced up with insinuation, supported by no facts at all.

I want to know what you think wiki should do about this, in that case. James Hyett (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not jump to conclusions. This is an encyclopedia. Facts first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs)

The chart shows the mortality rate for children under the age of five. That's not (for the most part) the demographic we're discussing here. Vexations (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Then take it upon yourself to get the exact statistics of demographic of what you think the ages are, since they are, as of yet, unknown. Like I said... jumping to conclusions. I conjecture that the curves of the death rates of the same period of time are similar, binned for an array of age groups. My point is, graves are for dead people, and people used to die more frequently 130 years ago at younger ages than today. Also rarely did they mark the graves of the young. Why don't you wait until you have a scant few facts before you draw a conclusion about what should be written into an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs)

We don't do original research. If you can find a reliable source that supports your assertions, we can discuss how to add that to the article. Vexations (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The facts are that according to sources 215 children's bodies were found in unmarked graves. End of facts. Further to that the reactions to the discovery have been a notable event in and of itself, with far-reaching response beyond Canada itself (the United Nations and Pope Francis for example) Our job is present this information in a WP:NPOV and unbiased way. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not so fast. The fact that 215 bodies are in up to 130 year old unmarked grave is not unique or conspicuous. CaffeinAddict is adding uniquess. Like a grave site is unusual if it is unmarked. It isn't. It is common, unremarkable. It is hype and you are the one hyping it. Here is a video of mass grave with children and young adults from the exact same time. Here is a video that is viewable in a very famous video site ( PMphVeKh2so ).

Further, here is a link to a PDF about the mass deaths of indigenous people in British Columbia during the Spanish Flu 1918-19. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/1498/1541 Title: BRITISH COLUMBIA FIRST NATIONS AND THE INFLUENZA PANDEMIC OF 1918-191 by MARY-ELLEN KELM. Page 40 "Many availed themselves of non-Native medicine. Evangeline Pete, a Sto:lo elder, remembers going to hospital with her whole family when they got the flu. They stayed for three months. Her brother died there and her father was so weakened by the disease that he died a year later.86 Others checked themselves into the segregated barracks des-ignated for "Indians" in Kamloops.87"

oh for God's sake. Some of the IP editors above really need to educate themselves before lecturing others about not jumping to conclusions. Yes, for those unfamiliar with this history, it is a painful discovery. But jumping to conclusions??? This history has always been known, and as early as 1907 governments were warned about the massive death rate at these schools and chose to do nothing. Children dug the graves for the dead children, and some of those children are still alive. That is why they know where to look. A massive wrong was done and has just now been proven. So sorry if it disturbs anyone's comfortable existence. Elinruby (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@24.138.33.183: Peter Bryce would be a good place to start. Meanwhile if you want to research mortality rates at these schools vs in the general population, I think you will find out that you are wrong, but it's your time to waste if you want to. In order to have the article say that they are the same, we would need two or more reliable sources that explicitly say they are the same. See WP:RS. I am assuming you posted in good faith and just don't know, because there really isn't any other good reason to come to a discussion about many children dying, just to point out that everyone dies. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If I am wrong, then so is statista. Here is the plot of Child mortality rates in Canada: Facts are stubborn. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/

Page protection

I have requested semi-protection for this page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to high traffic volume, controversial subject matter and the persistent disruptive editing from IP editors and new users. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of IP editors coming back to the article - should I request page protection again? CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This page has been protected again due to persistent disruptive editing and vandalism. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

The header about the 215 graves calls it a discovery of mass graves. No news source calls it a mass grave, it is a mass of individual unmarked graves, not a mass grave. A header calling it a mass grave is incorrect and potentially inflammatory. 2605:B100:1119:7A5A:A184:35B6:C53A:DE6A (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. A Google search of "kamloops mass grave" gives a lot of hits in reliable sources. In any case, please get consensus for this change before filing an edit request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass Grave vs Individual Graves

Please see this page .. this is the chief himself trying to correct the misinformation about there. "We want to be clear, it's not one mass grave; it's individual graves that were found in and around the Kamloops Indian Residential School." https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.6047156/chief-calls-on-feds-to-cut-red-tape-and-find-all-of-canada-s-residential-school-burial-sites-1.6047159 Yesurbius (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming in to say something similar: the Washington Post has issued a correction after being contacted by the Kamloops band about this. A couple of days ago someone was pointing to sources that said "mass" -- this is a case of the OR and RS policies having unintended consequences, I think. But in a day or so we should have a consensus of sources says "graves" rather than "a mass grave". Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Depending on how the information turns out we should probably reword it to "discovery of 215 unmarked graves", "discovery of unmarked graves" or "discovery of unmarked burial sites". CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A good way to put it might also be "unmarked graves of 215 people", as this gives a total count without absolutely specifying either single graves or a mass. That avoids some possible misinterpretations or assumptions, since 215 graves could be interpreted literally as 215 individual burials, which may not have been the case. Julius177 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

My preference is "children", not "people". --Dnllnd (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree - it definitely warrants the description of being "children". "People" would imply maybe some of the teachers were buried there too. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References to "mass graves" are mainly in comment pieces or quotes, not hard news reporting. Also beware of references to "children as young as three years" as this is beyond the capability of the ground-penetrating radar used in this search. All that is known for sure is that the ground has been disturbed for burials for which no on-site identification is available. -- Moorespoint (talk) 22:44. 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are 51 documented deaths acknowledged officially - I believe some of those children's ages were known. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How do we know that any of the documented and acknowledged deaths were included in the findings of the GPR survey? Unless the graves are marked (which the press releases say they aren't), I doubt there's any way the GPR surveyor could possibly know for a fact who exactly the graves were for, and exactly how young they are. At any rate, I suppose the only thing to do is accurately reproduce what 'reputable' third parties say and wait for exhumation or clarification to confirm or debunk any of the suspiciously specific claims Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fullmetalalch: Wikipedia isn't here to "debunk" what a sovereign nation says about events within its boundaries. Its statements on such a topic are notable and merit inclusion no matter what. I notice that you appear to focus on race topics, and seem to assume that the Kamloops band is lying or mistaken somehow. It is legitimate to wonder how they know "as young as three", but it is what we call original research (WP:OR) to attempt to "debunk" it. This is WP:NOTAFORUM to debate the topic. We go by what the sources say, and there aren't any that "debunk" the "as young as three" remark, because guess what, journalists also presume that a government knows the results of its programs, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, which is non-existent here. Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Further investigation, exhumation and disclosure by the Kamloops Nation, the Catholic Church, and the Government of BC and Canada will confirm or debunk the claims of the GPR survey. I never said that WP:OR should be done to debunk anything. I'm glad you agree with me, that we should stick with what the sources say instead of omitting points we personally find contentious. Fullmetalalch (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I despise having to remind people what they said, in your case,

I suppose the only thing to do is accurately reproduce what 'reputable' third parties say and wait for exhumation or clarification to confirm or debunk any of the suspiciously specific claims

This wording implies that third parties are reputable, not the Kamloops band, and that engineering work commissioned by the band somehow requires confirmation. It does not, nor would such confirmation be forthcoming anytime soon, given that more than a century after the federal government was notified of rampant mortality at the schools, it has made no attempt to find any graves. Assuming good faith, I urge you to examine your assumptions. I will move any further comments about "suspiciously specific" findings to your talk page. They do not belong here and impede attempts to improve the article. Please do wrap your mind around the fact that what the Kamloops band has to say about this is inherently notable no matter what you think of it. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're reading into what I said instead of reading what I said, and misreading it too. The current state of the article accurately reproduces what third parties say (by my estimation). Qualifying the band's statements when no reputable third parties have first, would worsen the article. exhumation and clarification is what confirms or debunks claims about the age of children buried. I never said a third party has to exhume the bodies, nor did I say that a third party would have to clarify the statements the Kamloops band has said. I don't even know how a third party can clarify what someone says in any authoritative way. I made no statement about the Government of Canada's response to knowledge of high mortality rates in Kamloops or any residential school. I do not know what assumptions I am supposed to examine as you haven't identified any assumptions on my part. I think my statements on suspiciously specific claims deserve to be here as they illustrate to Moorespoint that personal opinion should not be allowed to dictate what and how information is put into the article. I don't know why you are mentioning the notability of the Kamloops press release, as I never said anything about its notability. Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume I am confused. Who are these reputable third parties, and why do we need them again? Please provide an example of a reputable third party and what it is you think they should do. I am going to go look up what Moore said, but none of this is based on anybody's personal opinion. Wikipedia has a very specific set of policies about what goes into an article, and you can find them by clicking on these links: WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Your thoughts on suspicious specificity are not included. Your comments here may or may not deserve to be here. So far I am assuming good faith and a desire to improve the article. If you simply want to debate whether this happened, they are inappropriate and perhaps I should remove them. We go by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that these are graves, and that many children at the school died of neglect. This is not up for discussion. Elinruby (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

followup: ok, I found what Moorespoint said. Assuming he/she is correct in saying that ground-penetrating radar wouldn't show the age of a child, it is legit to wonder where "as young as three" comes from. But what Moorespoint may or may not know about ground-penetrating radar is what we call original research (WP:OR) and is not ok for inclusion in the article. This is why we had the problem earlier with "mass grave" -- the earlier news stories were using this terminology, all of them, and even though the history or the place told us it was probably many individual graves, we couldn't make the change until reliable sources (WP:RS) issued corrections and began saying "graves" not "mass graves". The policy is that strict, and has to be, because all sorts of people edit Wikipedia. Now. Supposing you were able to find articles (at least two) in reliable sources that said that ground-penetrating radar won't show that, strictly speaking you would have met *that* test, but whether or not one of the children was three is really pretty peripheral to what the article is about, which is the school and the 215 graves at the school, so another policy would come into play called due weight (WP:DUE). This means that the article should mostly talk about the important parts of the topic, which imho is the number 215 and not the age of one child in one grave. I added the age three detail from the band's press release -- you were wondering why I was talking about the press release, and that's why: that detail came from the press release. I do not know if someone has taken it out of the article since then, but as far as Wikipedia goes, if Chief Casimir said that then we assume she knows what she is talking about, since she hired the contractors and got the report, and especially since the newspapers have repeated it. It is not however an important part of the article. I hope this explanation is helpful; it is trying to be. Elinruby (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can be so abrasive while agreeing with everything I'm saying. Reputable third parties are all WP:RS that aren't Kamloops band. If someone, such as me, or Moorespoint, or anyone else wanted to include anything into the article that isn't reiterating what Kamloops band has said on the matter of the age of the children, we would need a WP:RS article that says as much (at the very least). As I have said, and it seems you agree with me, no reliable sources have questioned any of the claims in the press release. As a result, OBVIOUSLY, the article will not and should not contain any criticism of the band's statements. I am not 'debating' that any such criticisms should be included. I am saying the opposite. Again: I am agreeing with you, Elinruby. I do not think the article should include unsourced criticism of the Kamloops band's press release.Fullmetalalch (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

perhaps because we both mean well and are talking past each other ;) I still don't understand why you exclude the Kamloops band however. Not to be abrasive ;) They are certainly a reliable source for their own actions, right? Sorry, what they think is important to the article, so I really need to hear why in the world they wouldn't be? Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I exclude the Kamloops band when speaking about reliable sources criticizing the claims of Kamloops band because I don't expect Kamloops band to give a press release challenging their own claims in their last press release. The only things I would expect in any additional press releases from them is clarification (release of the GPR surveying results, etc) or details of the exhumation and identification of the buried children.Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So you want corroboration? Why? If we are using RS within the specialized Wikipedia meaning, all reliable sources take them at their word. So why wouldn't we? It sounds like you want some other authority to confirm what they are saying. They are a sovereign nation, dude. They say what they say when it comes to something they do. What am I not seeing here? This is why I am hung up on "debunk". To me it says of course this is a scam. Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything about corroboration. All claims of fact can be confirmed or debunked. I was giving the conditions under which that would happen.Fullmetalalch (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Adding an arbitrary break - can we gather some consensus on this? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that the burials are widely believed to be of children. This avoids a potential truth statement about the burials themselves without having all the facts yet. I imagine this will take years to investigate. Especially in the article body, there is plenty of space to elaborate about this and perhaps summarize early news media coverage so readers can understand and interpret what they are reading elsewhere to be able to differentiate between what is logically suspected/inferred, and what has been proven so far. This feels like the strongest role Wikipedia can play and what readers would likely be looking for when searching for this article. Julius177 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not support the inclusion of weasel words like "widely believed to be." This sort of passive tense is discouraged because it diffuses responsibility and obscures who it is that believed this. More important, the primary and secondary sources all overwhelmingly say bodies of children, with no uncertainty about this. Isn't it OR to inject ambiguity unsupported by the sources? If we have questions about the evidence for this, I think the thing to do is attribute the statement.Elinruby (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is no evidence that any adults are buried there. I am the editor who added "as young as three", which is according to the Kamloops band leader. I did wonder how she knew this, but she's probably the best authority out there on the incident. If I didn't attribute it to her though I should have. I also think it is totally legit to ask how this is known.Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A related concern: the lede currently says the bodies were discovered in May 2021, but is this true of all of them? I understand that there was a lengthy process. Maybe this should be phrased instead to say that the band announced the discovery in May 2021. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I was more suggesting whether the phrasing should steer away from "Mass gave" to "Unmarked graves". It's undoubtedly children. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind I see the changes have been made. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Elinruby's concern about the "discovery" having been made in May 2021, I've made a few edits just now (mostly to the lede, the body seemed fine) that draw directly from the TteS press release on the matter, which "confirms" the discovery, without actually saying *when* they were discovered (in fact, band members were informed before the general public, and it isn't clear when that happened).James Hyett (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It's important to note that the finding has not been verified by any source. I have been attempting to edit the article to reflect this fact but someone reverts my edits, claiming existing sources linked to in the article state the finding has been confirmed, when these sources say nothing of the sort. So far, all sources repeat the tribe's assertions as to the existence of 215 bodies in a mass grave, but none actually offer any confirmation of the find. I don't mean to denigrate the seriousness of the subject matter, but the article should reflect the fact that the tribe's announcement has not been confirmed, and no evidence has been offered by the tribe apart from their statements. In point of fact, the tribe's statements that ground penetrating radar were used to identify a grave does not in itself amount to confirmation of anything other than their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.149.216 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The finding was announced by an Indigenous governmental source and has not been disputed by any major news agency, government, or other organization. I see no reason why this should be considered "unreliable". With all due respect, I believe that 96.55.149.216 would not be making the same argument if, say, the City of Kamloops or BC or Canadian government had announced this discovery and that they are singling out an Indigenous government source as unreliable merely because it is Indigenous. AspieWiki (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I would further point out that 96.55.149.216 has a history of random and bizarre vandalism of pages relating to colonialism and would accordingly ask that their contributions to this discussion be given little weight. AspieWiki (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@AspieWiki I can't find that 96.55.149.216 ?? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the other discussion threads on this talk page, the discovery of mass graves at the school is well-established and there has been many official statements and acknowledgements of this fact from many other notable sources and institutions. Frozemint (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Frozemint They all stem from the same ground penetrating survey though I think. Was there a scientific paper? Also what is the difference between a mass grave, mass burial, unmarked graves?? Is it just a phrase, or are there connotations in Canadian/Indigenous/UK Culture? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"See also" section

I've been noticing that this school is getting a lot of attention lately due to recent events. Would it be okay if I added Florida School for Boys to the "See also" section. The story is quite similar, but it does not have as much attention. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend an explanatory note if you do so, but I'm relatively familiar with that case and agree that they do seem comparable and that it feels appropriate. Julius177 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Good source

Lots of detail on conditions https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-learned-how-to-hate-what-it-was-like-to-attend-kamloops-indian-residential-school

In particular, this is a reliable source for starvation and sexual abuse as well as starvation. Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed text

"In 1962, the dancers were awarded the Norman Day Confederation Life shield, after taking the first three places in an under-18 folk dancing competition at the Okanagan Music Festival.

Trying for WP:DUE. Currently article lists awards then right at the end casually mentions physical abuse. Will need more work, but currently cutting this paragraph.

Long quote from Pope

the length is really excessive and the quote contains little information. I figure I should discuss it here to see if anyone wants to object to some major snippage. Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm the editor who posted it - because I assume he was speaking another language (Italian?) each news source had a different quote from him, so I kind of compiled two or three together IIRC.

Bringing the quote in here, using strikethrough to see what I think should be snipped:

"I follow with sorrow the news that arrives from Canada about the upsetting discovery of the remains of 215 children...

I join with the Catholic church in Canada in expressing closeness to the Canadian people traumatized by the shocking news ... This sad discovery increases the awareness of the sorrows and sufferings of the past ... May the political and religious authorities continue to collaborate with determination to shed light on this sad affair and to commit to a path of healing ...

Let us commend to the Lord the souls of all of the dead children in the residential schools of Canada and let us pray for the families and the native communities of Canada shattered by pain."

CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I did something last night, don't remember what, but this is shorter and contains what imho is the heart of the quote, "May the political and religious authorities continue to collaborate." If mine is different I consider this one as good an improvement. Elinruby (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I just made another cut, basically this as I recall. I also changed the other long quotes in this section to blockquotes for readability and balance. These too could be trimmed probably. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Another section in the discovery of mass grave section

Given that there has been a lot of community and institutional reactions since the discovery of the unmarked mass graves - we went from lowering flags, official responses, to now cancelling canada day, should we create another section so we could better categorise and compartmentalise the various types of reactions? Frozemint (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Closing this section since CaffeinAddict is already proposing a similar article. Frozemint (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to the recent discovery of more graves at a SK residential school - I propose we create a separate article for these events compiling the Kamloops and info from Canadian Indian residential school system#Missing children and unmarked graves so as not to bloat either sections of the respective articles. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a name for this somewhere along the lines of Unmarked grave sites at Canadian Indian residential schools. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What about an article for the timeline of the discoveries so far? We know there will be more and more discoveries coming given the historical context and the momentum to uncover more mass graves. Frozemint (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that's pretty much what I'm proposing - but it doesn't have to be a timeline article. And these are unmarked graves broadly speaking not mass graves. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea, but I'm not sure if the current article title you have in mind does the topic justice in conveying the broader contexts and the sheer scope of the ongoing discoveries.Frozemint (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

As always name changes can happen, but there's no rush to create said article. Any suggestions? CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just Unmarked graves at Canadian Indian residential schools? Or 2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries given that this is likely to continue with the momentum since last month? I agree with this proposal however, and it also seems to be a sentiment expressed at the current Wikipedia:In The News discussion (current permalink) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries sounds like a good title to me, since (unfortunately) there is honestly good reasons to believe the discoveries will keep coming. Frozemint (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and created the dated page, just to get a start going since I won't be online much longer. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. An unrelated question, how come your signature looks fancy and has that reddit like "flair"?? Frozemint (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Estimate has been revised from 215 to 200

This article should be edited to de-emphasize the number 215 which was the initial announced estimate of the number of unmarked graves in the surveyed area. That estimate has now been revised to about 200, as indicated in reports by CBC, The Globe and Mail, CNN, and other media. The anthropologist who did the investigation clarified that what has been found should be referred to as "probable" burials:

Though preliminary findings in May indicated there could be as many as 215 potential burial sites, archeological reports about excavations and assessments done in the same area in the late 1990s and early 2000s prompted ground-penetrating radar specialist Sarah Beaulieu to revise that number down to 200. She also said that number may go much higher eventually, since she surveyed only one hectare of a 65-hectare area and there is still forensic investigation and excavation work to be done.

Angela Sterritt; Courtney Dickson (15 July 2021). "'This is heavy truth': Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc chief says more to be done to identify unmarked graves". CBC News.

On Thursday, Sarah Beaulieu, who performed the search just days before the preliminary results were made public, said nothing has changed substantively since her initial findings. She did, however, reduce the number of probable gravesites from 215 to 200, taking into account previous excavation work that had been done in the area that could have influenced the results.

She also stressed her findings can’t be confirmed unless excavations are done at the scene.

"Which is why we need to pull back a little bit and say that they are ‘probable burials,’ they are ‘targets of interest,’ for sure," said Dr. Beaulieu, who has about a decade of experience searching for historic grave sites, including working with the RCMP and other First Nations communities. She said the sites "have multiple signatures that present like burials," but that "we do need to say that they are probable, until one excavates."

Jana G. Pruden; Mike Hager (15 July 2021). "Anthropologist explains how she concluded 200 children were buried at the Kamloops Residential School". The Globe and Mail.

As many as 200 graves have been found, according to preliminary results, down from an initial estimate in May of 215, but Beaulieu said that number could be revised higher with more forensic investigation and excavation.

Paula Newton (16 July 2021). "Thousands of children from Canadian schools for indigenous communities may be buried in unmarked graves, officials say". CNN.

Links to other reports (each with slightly different emphases): Global News [1], Reuters [2], Kamloops This Week [3]. Press release is here: [4]

Therefore, the figure "215" should be removed from the introductory section of this Wikipedia article. Also, the heading "Discovery of unmarked graves" should be changed to "Discovery of presumed unmarked graves" (or instead of "presumed", another qualifier such as "suspected" or "probable"). The article Canadian Indian residential school gravesites should also be changed in the same way. Cinematical (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection here, I went ahead and made the proposed edits: [5]. Cinematical (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the objectively right thing to do, as information changes, the article changes based on sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: In this edit you removed the word "presumed", calling it a weasel word. But Wikipedia's heading should not refer to the discovery of unmarked graves without qualifier, because the person who actually did the research has been very clear that without excavations nobody can be certain that these are graves, so they should be called "probable" burials. See the quotation from Sarah Beaulieu in The Globe and Mail, which I set out above. Cinematical (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't use wikipedia to prove a point. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Dorchester Review

This claims to be a semi-annual journal of history and historical commentary but regrettably, hardly any article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. After all, the academia is filled with post-modern woke Jehadis.

It is described as a conservative media outlet and all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is. The rare (academic) reviews of articles published in the mag do not instill any confidence:

The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on the Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
— http://activehistory.ca/papers/paper-20/

Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
— https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2021.1935574

Contributing to the Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
— https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781487518042-009/html

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

More over here. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of conservative-leaning or liberal-leaning sources. If you have an issue with the reliability of this source, please take it to WP:RSN. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment which is neither here nor there. I have provided three-quotes and emphasized certain phrases - for example, the lack of [meaningful] peer review. I do not see conservative-leaning is one of them.

At-least two other editors have removed the source citing RS and you know where RSN is. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I can take "Montana News Gazette" to RSN, if you wish. We have a decent article courtesy GorillaWarfare. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Dorchester Review article contained no original research. All they did was summarize data from other sources, and then state the obvious. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Then, we will have other sources that state the same obvious. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Why would you even consider taking "Montana News Gazette" to RSN? The only information taken from it was a direct quote from Beaulieu, which the Globe and Mail paraphrased nearly word for word. Why humiliate yourself with such an obviously vexatious report? Jesus. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In her presentation, Dr. Beaulieu, a modern conflict anthropologist who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley east of Vancouver, went through some of the scientific aspects of her search of the area with ground-penetrating radar, including sharing imaging that demonstrated what is seen with other disturbances in the ground – such as tree roots, metal and stones. She pointed out the indicators that led her to conclude that disruptions picked up in the radar were, in fact, the graves of children – their placement, size, depth and other features.
— The Globe and Mail article, cited by you.

Do I need to say more on why Montana News Gazette is unreliable, even when they are using "direct quotes"? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Both the National Post and Toronto Star have commented on The Dorchester Review article. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Both of the articles you've just linked to are opinion pieces, not news. Also, the Toronto Star piece characterises the writer of the Dorchester Review article as a "genocide denier" going on a "racist rant"-- hardly something that needs inclusion in this article. Tranga has done a very thorough job of laying out the case for excluding the Dorchester Review as an unreliable source, and you have not presented a reason for it to be included. Would you care to do so?James Hyett (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You've exhorted me to join the Talk page discussion, but I'm already here. James Hyett (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, thread at RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rouillard is intentionally misleading and biased. The only thing that is factual is that the examinations have not revealed any bodies. He does not explain why: they are potentially graces. He then claims that there are "unsubstantiated claims by Aboriginal leaders" yet, the GPR has usually turned up suspicious results.

Can you show me the editorial board of The Dorchester Review? I see The Team page, but it seems that individual articles are not vetted in any way. No indication who is the editor of or vets individual articles. No stated policy for retractions or corrections. All of which go against RS.

Whether or not the "review" is deemed reliable or not, the article in question is not worth its weight in electrons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What is acceptable to include about non-exhumation

Good morning all from the uk. I note that plans are in hand to exhume the bodies supposed to be in the identified probable graves.

Would it be acceptable to include the bare statement that no attempted exhumations have yet taken place? Or… Would it be acceptable to include the bare statement that no exhumations have yet taken place?

I have no axe to grind on this article, just wanting the encyclopaedia to reflect consensus and RS.

Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

New source about non-exhumation

Hi folks,

Here is a new source calling into question the findings. You can find the status of this source on Wikipedia here (no consensus). MonsieurD (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not a new source calling into question the findings, this is an op-ed taking issue with very specific wording about the findings that people have used on Twitter, for instance. Also, no consensus across four RfCs doesn't give me the greatest confidence in The American Conservative. How would you suggest we use this source in this article? James Hyett (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's another one from yesterday. I think the sources should be used to convey the uncertainty. Ground penetrating radar cannot confirm the presence of bodies. Please read it. --MonsieurD (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already makes clear that these are presumed, not confirmed gravesites. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@James Hyett: It's not an "op ed", and the National Post is a respected Canadian newspaper. The source can be used to add truth to what very much resembles a hoax. The #1 comment on the National Post article (of 922) summed it up well: "No one in Canada bothered to push back on the 'world's media'. We just accepted the narrative that we are the worst monsters on Earth". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I think you've put this response in the wrong thread. James Hyett (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't - I realise now that MonsieurD did also provide a link to a National Post article. However, the first link was to what is most certainly an opinion piece from "The American Conservative". Floydian is right that this Wikipedia article, as it stands, already makes clear that these are presumed gravesites. Please identify specific passages you think could be amended to make the article more complete, rather than just claiming a hoax. James Hyett (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@James Hyett: My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

Should we note news media persistently labeling the possible graves as "mass graves"? Wouldn't juxtaposing this error to what Bealieu etc say clarify things for the reader or is it argumentative? Skingski (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Feels unnecessary to me, without something like a systemic analysis of who is using which terms to refer to the possible graves. So long as we are being consistent and accurate, I think it's fine. James Hyett (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

::Hoax. Resulting the burning of over 100 churches. 24.138.41.85 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)(inaccurate and defamatory trolling)

They do keep saying it and yes it is wrong. I think that's because it's a hard-wired media trope when reporting multiple unexplained deaths. To anyone new to this topic, there are multiple individual graves, not one mass grave. Although theoretically we follow what the sources say, I don't think this necessarily has to hold when they are definitely getting a minor detail wrong. I assume Castanet is correct on the subject? My suggestion would be to just use the source that's getting that right, rather than get bogged down in refuting a non-consequential error about a tangential detail. I see the article is still plagued by IPs trying to promote the theory that this is a hoax. Is it time to ask for extended-confirmed page protection? I was hesitant to do this before because I thought it might prevent relatives of lost kids from participating. Assuming that goes through, and persistent trolling is usually considered reason enough, anyone who wants to comment will just need to make an account. It was me that struck the comment above btw; that's completely inappropriate and the people trying to work on this article shouldn't have to put up with that. Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely support that. I've had the page on watchlist for a while, and would definitely support a limit on the trolls. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I got told that there wasn't enough recent disruption to warrant it. I don't think the person I was talking to understood, however, that the "disruption" involves calling the death of many children a hoax. For now I am going to leave it at that, but I don't use a watchlist so I may miss future outbreaks. "Request for page protection" is where you want to go if it gets worse or even just continues. I've been reviewing the history for other reasons, though, and saw that there have been repeated attempts to introduce Rouillard's deplorable comments.

Is it always the same IP address? that may be another way to go. If nothing else though, if you aren't comfortable with wiki-proceedings, I think you can feel free to strike any such remarks on the talk page as I have done above, and to remove the text from the article. I went all through the residential school articles a while back and feel strongly it's been established to Wikipedia standards that

1. yes there are graves
2. Wikipedia should not second-guess whether or not they should be excavated.

Feel free to ping me with any questions/problems with this sort of racist disruption. I am no kind of admin, mind you, but I am pretty familiar with the facts and willing to help. Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

I have made some small edits to reflect criticism of the Kamloops claims. I have no axe to grind, I am not Canadian for example, but on reading the article and some of the comments above I detect some partial editing (no doubt unconcious; I am not suggesting anything other than good faith by editors). The original provisional claims were made based on a single piece of research carried out by a postgraduate student. Much world reportage reflects the fact that no ongoing programme to produce empirical or confirmatory evidence is underway and there is manifestly a great deal of widely expressed scepticism (not universal, by any means) about the claims. That must be reflected in this article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Emmentalist, for your considered edits and comment here. You have added content that cites the following sources:

• https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-how-the-worlds-media-got-it-wrong-on-residential-school-graves
• https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/in-kamloops-not-one-body-has-been-found
• https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-mystery-of-canada-s-indigenous-mass-graves/

There has been extensive discussion above about why the Dorchester Review piece is unsuitable for inclusion in this article. Walter Görlitz summed it up well:

" Rouillard is intentionally misleading and biased. The only thing that is factual is that the examinations have not revealed any bodies. He does not explain why: they are potentially graces. He then claims that there are "unsubstantiated claims by Aboriginal leaders" yet, the GPR has usually turned up suspicious results.

Can you show me the editorial board of The Dorchester Review? I see The Team page, but it seems that individual articles are not vetted in any way. No indication who is the editor of or vets individual articles. No stated policy for retractions or corrections. All of which go against RS.

Whether or not the "review" is deemed reliable or not, the article in question is not worth its weight in electrons."

As for The Spectator, over at WP:RSP it seems that "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG." We therefore cannot represent the content of the Spectator article as fact, but should attribute it explicitly to its author, Jane Stannus, a translator and journalist. She is not enough of an authority on this subject to merit the inclusion of her opinions in this article.

The National Post is a reliable source, but the NP post you cite is rather specifically about the initial media reaction to the reports from Kamloops.

Finally, none of the sources you cite identify Sarah Beaulieu as a postgraduate student at the time of her initial findings, they either call her an archaeologist or anthropologist. James Hyett (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've removed the reference to postgraduate status as the sources which report that are not good enough. I've also removed the reference to Beaulieu's work; that's implied by much of the criticism but again I don't think that's quite strong enough for inclusion here. I see the discussion about Rouillard and feel that is is not objective; Rouillard is appropriately qualified and experienced and the article raises legitimate points. I find the article credible and a reasonable source. It is not a WP:deprecated source. That source is considered credible by established news entitites such as The Spectator, so their imprimateur is lent to the relevant content where its repeated at the other sources. I've inserted a new citation in respect of the scepticism. I've removed your 'citation require' tags becuse of the above but do feel free to put back again if think that's wrong. The main thing is that legitimate scepticism widely covered in the media about the 'mass grave's thesis isn't swept under the carpet. In the end, it's just a thesis and literally nothing more at present. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Emmentalist. Please see my most recent edit and summary. While Spiked is probably not a reliable source for factual information, in this context as a source of an opinion, it is acceptable. I've crafted a sentence about Wilfred Reilly's skepticism that he writes about in that piece, and Terry Glavin's from the National Post article, and put it at the end of the Reactions section, for chronology (those pieces being published in summer 2022, whereas the other reactions described took place in 2021). And I've removed the sentence about it from the lead, thinking about WP:LEAD and how much WP:WEIGHT needs to be given to what in this context amount to opinions. James Hyett (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @James Hyett. Your edits are definitely an improvement on mine. The whole article looks much more balanced now. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Big problems are going to come from this.

NYT starting their article with this caption in January 2023.

They're still using the 215 estimate.

A memorial for 215 children found buried in unmarked graves near the Kamloops Residential School in British Columbia in 2021

It's become clear that they probably aren't going to exhume any graves. Ever.

While students were sent to St. Mary’s from a large number of Indigenous communities, Chief Skead said that the Wauzhushk Onigum Nation members have already decided that no remains will be exhumed. Other Indigenous communities that are conducting searches, which have been supported by the federal government and provinces, are still considering that question.

Ultimately, any land that is likely to have graves will be turned into a memorial site, Chief Skead said. In the interim, he said, the community is taking extra precautions to ensure that remains aren’t unearthed by any construction work.

The ground penetrating radar being employed better be a very valid technique. Forty unmarked graves found at another residential school. This is in April 2023.

It's now been over two years since the first indication of unmarked graves at Kamloops. This was the basis for labeling Catholics as a genocidal people in Canada, which has had real world consequences for real people. Outside of wiki talk page reliable sources considerations.

I don't even want to know how history will look at this. ReadsWikiOrgForFun (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

oh are you the one that added the non-notable "digital culture" e-zine as a reference in this archaeology article? I removed that, as well as the hateful op-ed. People do not have to dig up their aunts to prove to you that this happened. Believe it, don't believe it, but when it comes to denying mass murder on Wikipedia, it best be done with some seriously authoritative referencing. Helpful hints as you seem new to Wikipedia:

1. The policies that apply here include WP:DUE and WP:RS
2. An expert questioning the veracity of these people, if one exists, could possibly be found at JSTOR or Google Scholar. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A Shillelagh?

- From the article

Students at the school received harsh treatment, including being hit with a shillelagh or being shamed for minor mistakes.

- References this

The benefits of being a dancer at the Kamloops school also came at a price: the rehearsals were rigorous and discipline was harsh. Students recalled being hit with a “shillelagh” (an Irish walking stick or club) for making errors and being verbally humiliated.178

- Which references another book—Resistance and Renewal

Not all was pleasant for the girls who decided to become dancers. One long-standing member of the group had some particularly bitter memories.

"... my toenails are permanently damaged from [having] to stand on your toes. If you didn’t stand on your toes, you were whacked with a ... shillelagh and she’d whack you damn hard on your legs ...."

Is this for real—a ... shillelagh—?

The book doesn't have a numbered Bibliography. The author is not citing things in any sort of reasonable way.

The book doesn't even make it clear if the author is getting this information from an interview they conducted themselves, or if someone else did the interviews and this is a synthesis of that. This is not a cogent piece of work that can stand up to any serious scrutiny.

Thirteen interviews with Native people of the central Interior of British Columbia, former students of the school, form the nucleus of the study. Because the interior people traditionally have oral cultures, interviewing was deemed the most appropriate research technique.

Interviews with no transcripts or recordings from people with aliases? ReadsWikiOrgForFun (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty offensive insinuation. Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Denialism on this topic

There is really no question that horrors occurred in the residential school system in Canada (and also in the United States, which is off-topic here).

The Canadian government held a full-scale Truth and Reconciliation Commission about this, and as suspicious as I am of official history in most cases, the history has been rather thoroughly validated in a lengthy investigation and report which the Canadian government no doubt would have preferred not to have to issue.

Many events surrounding these schools took place within the living memory of the survivors and the families of those who entered one of these schools and disappeared. Critical thinking is to to be encouraged but WP:OR on the subject of dead children veers into Alex Jones and Sandy Hook territory. I took a look last night in JSTOR for a critique of the finding in an academic journal, but only found a lengthy defense of using archaeology to investigate the indigenous culture of the period, at all. This is what we are dealing with. It may be too soon for the peer review process to have completely played out, perhaps.

I am not certain why magazines in the United Kingdom care enough about this history to refute it, but they are Simply Wrong and WP:DENY should apply.

This isn't a both-sides issue and we are not required to represent counterfactual rants in sources that do not meet our criteria. That said, I added Jason Kenney's remarks myself, but his opinion is independently notable given his political influence. That the National Post chose to put his "cancel culture" rant on this topic on its front page says more about its bias as a source than it does about the factuality of the rant. NP meets our reliable source criteria, yes. Kenney is a significant political figure, yes. I included the rant even though I think it is shameful that he pandered in this way to the very traditional right-wing elements of his political base. (Read: Catholics in Quebec.)

That said, I will take another look in some other academic databases to see if there are more respectable critiques that can be included. I once asked for page protection for this article, but there was some feeling that it might prevent stakeholders from commenting, and while there is persistent trolling here the volume is low, and dropping. So they don't want to do it, which I guess is fair enough. It is also possible to ask for a source restriction for the page (academic sources only) but see above: not many academic sources seem to exist about this yet.

On the subject of sourcing, Castanet and the Hope Standard are respectable mainstream local news publications that are just fine to use for the news aspects of the Kamloops find, which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the area. Also the Vancouver Sun and the Prince George Citizen. Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Followup: The Globe and Mail and the CBC are gold-star RS, while we are on the subject of sourcing. Just mentioning this for those who may wish to improve the sourcing or any perceived deficiencies in the balance of the article. The CBC is a public broadcaster but has an reputation for independence akin to that of NPR or the BBC, and the Globe and Mail is an independent and highly respected newspaper of record for national news. Elinruby (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that American Conservative was previously discussed above and its reliability is in question. And no wonder, considering that article if you ask me. But I will make another good-faith attempt to find a respectable critique in a few days. Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So far not vetted except that it's respectable enough to be listed at Ebsco. Points against, of course it's from Alberta, and published in the States. But: it is on topic, so posted here for discussion: Billy Remembers: Analyzing the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc/Kamloops Indian Residential School moral panic

Authors: WIDDOWSON, FRANCES Source: American Conservative. Mar/Apr2022, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p22-31. 10p. Document Type: Article Subject Terms:

• EDUCATION of indigenous peoples
• ETHNIC groups
• ASSIMILATION (Sociology)
• INDIGENOUS rights
• LEGAL status of indigenous peoples

Abstract: The article argues how indigenous deprivation like low educational levels, poor health, and high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, sexual abuse, and suicide is due to being economically isolated and receiving substandard services, especially a poor quality education. It reports that spending billions of dollars only benefits a tiny elite of indigenous and non-indigenous rent-seekers to the detriment of ordinary indigenous people. Author Affiliations: Associate professor in the Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary from 2008-2021 ISSN: 1540-966X Accession Number: 156150008 Database: Academic Search Complete

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 03:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You say "denialism" but don't say what they are denying. The articles you mention don't deny that there are graves, one of them stating "A good-faith compromise position seems to be that no one can know whether or not bodies exist at the Kamloops Residential School site". Sarah Beaulieu, who found the possible graves, agrees with that, saying "we need to pull back a little bit and say that they are ‘probable burials,’". --87.177.115.225 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@87.177.115.225 I dislike the use of the word denialism as a blanket reason for not including dissenting voices. I also understand why you would use an IP address. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for discussion

THIS SPACE HERE: Remains of Children of Kamloops Residential School Discovered. Izvor: BC Studies. Summer2021, Issue 210, p7-10. 4p. Povijesno razdoblje: 1890 to 2021 Vrsta dokumenta: Article Predmetni pojmovi: Boarding school students Off-reservation boarding schools Ground penetrating radar Missing children School administration ISSN: 0005-2949 Broj pristupa: 152241061 Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Criticism/Skepticism Section

There's been a lot of reporting piling up that is incredibly skeptical of there being any mass graves at this site, although a lot of it is from papers that are not deemed reliable sources from Wikipedia. I was thinking of sidestepping the argument of if The Dorchester Review specifically is a reliable source and just list the claims that have been published (from them and others) in a separate Skepticism section, under the "Reactions" at the bottom of the page. In general for notable topics I think it is worth including information from all sides, and being written about in several different publications for years definitely meets the notability criteria. Not covering the skepticism is leaving out a big chunk of the story. Again, not saying we should wade into the reliable source conversation again, it can be sidestepped entirely by just quoting the claims in a separate section on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayou Tapestry (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)