Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Infobox Problems

This may be solely a result of using an infobox template, but the infobox has a number of problems: firstly, the date given refers to the first in the ground-penetrating radar news, not the dates of the graves themselves nor even when they first became publicized. Second, it is incorrect (and POV) to attribute the deaths to the IRS system, just as it would be wrong to attribute deaths on reserve to the reserve system. Some level of mortality would be expected among poor children in this era; moreover, in at least some of these locations, we know the cemeteries were used by other parts of the community (such as the Kootenay cemetery). And that ends up going to the number as well - there are a number of estimated gravesites, but these do not necessarily represent residential school deaths. In some places staff members were also buried in these graveyards - do they count as "deaths" due to the IRS? Maybe, but that is a complicated question.

As it stands, the infobox is misleading and has a strongly embedded POV and I can't think of a simple way to fix it. It should be gotten rid of. The relevant information should be in the lede, where it can be presented in proper context. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, you'll have a pretty uphill battle given the sensationalism of the media and that they'd have you believe Ryerson wanted to make indigenous people white. The vast majority of the coverage of the gravesites has made it clear that they are presumed graves, but would also lead you to think that most of them contain children that were mistreated and not victims of tuberculosis. Until the GPR sites are exhumed, we will never have clear answers. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I could see a pretty clear way to address some of the concerns you raise: the date section of the infobox has been somewhat awkward for a while now, since we've included material for sites identified/publicised before the Kamloops site. Given that the article isn't really discussing an event, and that there is no clear "end" to the identification of gravesites, I would advocate for removing the "date" section of the infobox. James Hyett (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't address the substance of the concerns raised. Absent a fix for the infobox, I think it should just go (we can keep the picture). Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Update

7,412 many be up to 15,000 murders 75.108.124.190 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Murders" is more than a bit WP:POV, and your numbers are completely unsourced. Meters (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

False accusations

Estimates range from 3,200 to over 6,000. Base on ground penetrating FM radar.

Whole article give impression of non careful readers as there's were in reality infants bodies base on FM radar.

(Redacted)109.182.8.41 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article more closely. Why do you thing this article suggests that the graves are those of infants? I see no such implication.

If you have sources for reliable estimates then please present them. I am not aware of any reliable sources that claim 3000 graves have been found by ground penetrating radar, let alone 6000. And how does any of this excuse your previous claim of 30,000 to 60,000 infant graves? Or your personal attack? Meters (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Whistleblowers

This section should be removed since:

The only whistle blower listed, Kevin Annett (not a First Nations member), is a known conspiracy theorist. No citation is presented to show his "whistleblowing" led to the 2021 investigation.

Citations for his 1995 and 1996 evidence are interviews where he makes unvetted claims and provides no evidence.

There is no independent proof that Annett's 2006 self-made (and uncited) film and self-published multiple books are based on archive-sourced documentary evidence and victim testimonies. Parenthetically, no citation is provided to say the 2 books are Annett's (though it seems highly probable he wrote it, not the organisations listed as authors). Regarding the books listed:

Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust includes false claims as judged by Reuters and other groups.

A coauthor, the "International Human Rights Association of American Minorities Tribunal into Canadian Residential Schools" appears to only exist here and in a news item by a local newsletter, | "United Church appeals B.C. court ruling" in which it makes accusations against Annett's former ministry. In the article, the Church claims they never heard of this organisation or who runs it. The organisation further claims they would present the accusations to the U.N. - which apparently never happened.

The other author, "Justice in the Valley Coalition’s Inquiry into Crimes Against Aboriginal People", also appears to only exist for this book.

He has fabricated at least 2 other organizations according to 2021 Reuters fact checks.

The other book cited, Murder By Decree (website here), claims it is a "a corrective Counter Report to the miscarriage of justice by Church and State known as the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC)." It is self-published by yet another organisation, "The International Tribunal for the Disappeared of Canada," for whom the book's website also serves as its home page. The organisation claims offices in Brussels and Toronto, but Google searches turn up no other mention of it aside from this site and the book.

The organisation's newest claims] all written by Annett apaprently include a discovery that "Chinese companies with military connections are involved in aboriginal disappearances, as part of an “ethnic cleansing” program tied to the colonization of Chinese settlers to Canada’s west coast." Also "they" falsely claim on Jan. 14, 2022, "Britain cancels COVID measures after ICLCJ Arrest Warrants issued against Pharma CEO and Anglican Archbishop".

They also prominently link to the Republic of Kanata, a political party founded by Annett and 2 unnamed people and whose only candidate is [1].

"Annett's grassroots common law prosecution activities gained international support from the likes of Baltasar Garzón." There is no citation for this claim and Annett is not a prosecutor or lawyer. Parenthetically, Garzon is a disbarred judge in Spain convicted of illegal wiretapping.

The only citations in the article that his "Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada" (unobjectively termed "grassroots") exists are 1) WorldCat which only list books held by people and 2) a 1994 self-published book Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust cited later (publication date means the alleged organisation was in fact founded <2001). The book's frontispiece introduces the Truth Commission as "a public investigative body continuing the work of previous Tribunals into native residential schools." However, I found no evidence it is a governmental body or that it exists at all outside a self-published book.

The "report predating TRC's by a few years" is not reflected in the TRC's findings and no citation is provided to prove Annett is the reason TRC started on this.

In toto, his inclusion gives undue weight to a questionable source (WP:QUESTIONABLE) and undermines factual data later presented in the article.Skingski (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Soft agree: I think he ought to be addressed as it would seem that, until the 2020s, he was largely responsible for defining the media narrative around gravesites, even if was due to his less-than-reputable claims. I would maybe support a hyphenation of the information on him in this article and rename whatever section he falls under "Early claims" or something of that ilk that distinguishes him from the legitimate investigations that deserve more weight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

One option could be like on the "famous hoaxes" section on the UFO page. Another idea is to have a History section which details why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission examined things in the first place and how things led to the later surveys of school cemeteries and plots. Annett driving the narrative would fit into that. Also it may be a good introduction to the controversies.Skingski (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I quite like those proposals. Tomorrow will see if I can maneuver things into position. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

School #

The TRC report lists hundreds of Indian residential schools (| See Fig. 1). So only a fraction has or is alleged to have unmarked graves? Do the others have cemeteries with marked graves?Skingski (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I do see in later figures in that reference, many cemeteries have marked graves, but I'm unclear what percentage of IRS it represents.Skingski (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As per the first paragraph of this article, "Additional sites continued to be investigated across the country."-- there is no definite answer yet to exactly how many schools may have unmarked burial sites, because they are-- well-- unmarked. James Hyett (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Brian Giesbrecht has documented this here and here. Could be a valuable resource moving forward. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as things are concerned, the only one that doesn't have unmarked graves so far is Shubenacadie. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:39, 11 February 2022 (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) 13:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Presenting a source without comment is not a very effective use of a Talk page. Further, there is an extensive discussion on the unreliability of this particular source over at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School.James Hyett (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That no bodies have been found is a valid concern. All of the investigations are being done using ground-penetrating radar (GPR). To the best of my knowledge, there have been no attempts to break ground to confirm what the GPR surveys have discovered.

With that said, the investigations were conducted because of longstanding narratives that there were unmarked graves on the sites of the schools where the GPR surveys were conducted. That Rouillard starts quite early that they are "unsubstantiated claims by Aboriginal leaders" is simply a misrepresentation of the facts of these searches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think a reference to that article should be included at least to indicate that there exists an alternative perspective, advocated by a professional historian (Jacques Rouillard), on the discovery of new unmarked graves at the Indian residential schools and its implications. I know The Dorchester Review has a conservative-leaning and is known for having published a largely unreliable article in 2014 on the history of the schools, as James Hyett (talk) has pointed, but I think Jacques Rouillard's article should be valued not by its publisher but by its auther, who is clearly a professional historian.--Potatín5 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: I've already taken this to RSN, where it was deferred back to a talk page. My sense is that an WP:RFC is the only thing that will allow the introduction of--as you say--an "alternative perspective". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not deferred back to a talk page, the response was that "you've already received good answers on the talk-page". In other words, what I wrote above. Rouillard is intentionally misleading and biased. Tell me, how would that make it a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Well, there are more arguments employed by Jacques Rouillard apart from pointing out that no single body has yet been found at the gravesites. Firstly, Rouillard has argued that the disturbances in the ground could have been caused by many other things, such as roots of trees, metals and/or rocks. Secondly, he has pointed that current historical records about deaths of children at Kamloops Indian Residential School report the death of only around 49 students between 1915-1964, which is much lesser than the alleged 200 children buried at the graves.

As such, your objections should take into account those arguments as well before you disqualify such historian as simply "intentionally misleading and biased".--Potatín5 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

But the sources have been adjusted to take into account other objects in the group. The biggest argument against Rouillard is that he dismisses oral narrative when it suits him but then relies on it when it promotes his position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree the Kamloops paragraph is not bad as is. However, current references 46-7 (Snucins, May 28, 2021; Dickson and Watson, May 28, 2021) might need removal since their headlines categorically state remains were found which is untrue; they also duplicate the superior reference 45 (Pruden and Hager, July 16, 2021).

From that reference: "(Beaulieu) 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’..." Alternatively, we could keep those references in the context of media outlets overhyping the story as she indicates.

BTW in Ref. 45, Beaulieu says she would issue a final report in June 2021. Was that done? Can we cite this?

Claiming Prof. Rouillard is inconsistent is an opinion - do you have a reference to support it? He certainly uses extensive citations in the piece and is an expert in this field.[2] If needed, his inclusion would cover WP:NPOV.

Whether or not the journal should be banned as a source, the extensive coverage of the article (pro and con, fulfilling WP:WEIGHT) by reliable news sources alone would justify its inclusion (e.g., cite his review, then cite reviews of his piece in National Post[3] and Le Devoir[4] and Liberal Party Minister Marc Miller's retort championed by The Globe and Mail[5] for balance). As a side note, it seems like the delay in obtaining forensic evidence at this site (vs. others where exhumations are proceeding) has led to growing complaints in the news not just by Rouillard to which Miller also testily responded.Skingski (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm almost certain the article did use "presumed gravesites", which is the terminology used by a vast majority of the sources. In either case I support that change... But the rest of the case made Rouillard should be taken with a grain of salt until it is reported in more reliable sources... Or until they start exhumations in the warmer weather. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As Floydian mentions, this article has been consistent in calling them "presumed gravesites", "possible burial sites", and making clear that these findings are the result of exploratory surveys (except when actual remains have been identified, as in Dunbow). I'm also not convinced that the simple fact that Rouillard has a frwiki page gives me confidence in him being an expert in *this* field-- he seems to specialist in Québec labour history. James Hyett (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: How would you amend the relevant paragraph? I'm unclear what Rouillard substantively adds apart from the stir he caused - which may be a good reason, but perhaps in the Reactions section. Even the main page is careful to include words like "could" etc. to indicate there may be no graves as well as to reflect the confusion of how many there could be. One thing missing here and in the main page is specification of what can cause false positives as both Rouillard and Bealieu in Ref. 45 name: "tree roots, metal and stones." I look forward to the day exhumations are done so this discussion can be closed.Skingski (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally would not. We have one author and so it is WP:UNDUE and places too much weight on the author's opinion. Agree with Floydian that most sources do qualify that the grave-sites are presumed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skingski: Personally, I think we could amend the Kamloops section by mentioning Rouillard's skepticism about the discovery. I think we could edit the last line of the paragraph by editing and inserting in the last sentence; something like this: However, Beaulieu stated that "only forensic investigation with excavation" would confirm if these were actually human remains. Likewise, the historian Jacques Rouillard has argued that the detected disruptions in the ground could have been caused by other things such as roots of trees, metals and/or rocks. How do you view the proposed amendment?--Potatín5 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it at least merits mention, bolstered by a research paper on GPR in general, to mention some of the caveats of the technology. As an engineer I myself work with subsurface GPR, and the raw imagery it produces is akin to an ultrasound: it requires professional interpretation and even then it can only tell you so much... from what I recall this was mentioned in some of the early articles on Kamloops; that what they are seeing and interpreting as potential gravesites are changes in soil density that show natural condensed soil vs. disturbed soil. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Misleading table

In the "Summary of locations" section there is a table which lists "estimated or confirmed gravesites". Then in the actual table, the section heading is "gravesites". This is misleading, because some of the gravesites are only speculative and have not been confirmed. At Kamloops Indian Residential School, there is still no confirmation of any human remains. It is misleading to list "estimated" and "confirmed" in the same column. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would care to hover your mouse over the section heading "gravesites" you will see a helpful tooltip that explains the column. These are simply the numbers that we have at the moment, as different investigations have been playing out at different paces. I agree that it would be lovely to have definitive numbers, but absent a well-funded and concerted national investigation, that is unlikely. James Hyett (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@James Hyett: I am not overly familiar with Canadian events, so please forgive me. Have any gravesites been "confirmed"? If so, how many bodies were exhumed? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: As per the article we are editing: In 1996, a flood eroded the banks of the Highwood River, exposing the caskets and remains of some of the 73 children known to have died while attending Dunbow Industrial School, also referred to as St. Joseph's. In May 2001, the remains of 34 children were identified That is the only case in any of these schools where a significant number of remains have been taken out of the earth. It is a very sensitive thing to go about digging up bodies, especially around residential schools, which represent a great trauma for many people. The insistence on exhuming bodies in order to "prove" that there are gravesites is naive, when people with experience with ground-penetrating radar (like Beaulieu) are confident in their assertions that these are probable burial sites. James Hyett (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with James Hyett: until reliable sources concur that the number of estimated graves is different than that present in the article, we ought to keep things as they are. We can generally trust modeling and educated assumptions made by experts in their field, current political and public health discourses aside, and the technology and expertise involved have been accepted by reliable sources reporting on the topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not my point. Lumping "estimated" and "confirmed" graves in the same column is misleading to readers. Even the sources cited in the table confirm that of the 1,933 suspected graves, only 34 have been confirmed. There needs to be two columns. Sarah Beaulieu herself said "only forensic investigation with excavation" could confirm if these were actually human remains, so how can we put "estimated or confirmed gravesites" in the same column? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Lumping them together forces the reader to search the text to find out which is which, which defeats the point of having a summary table. For such a sensitive topic, 2 columns is appropriate and clearer for the reader. Or delete the table. (Aside: I've never seen hover used for a column heading; is there a Help page describing its use?)Skingski (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to indicate in the table where remains have been definitively found, but I don't think having a column for "estimated" and "confirmed" is the way to go, since the table at present could be interpreted to mean that the estimates have been disproven. I think we should have a column for estimated gravesites, and indicate in a notes section which sites have disinterred human remains. The notes section can also provide explanations for each case, so readers don't have to scan the article for what each number means (inevitably different in each case). James Hyett (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

How could "estimated" be taken as "disproven"? The news even uses the term. In fact, "estimated gravesites" seems immoderate as it implies "we know graves exist there, just not how many." In contrast, Beaulieu and this article qualify it as estimated numbers of "presumed/probable" gravesites, meaning there is a >50% chance graves would be found on forensic analysis - with the final number uncertain. We can add a note that the estimated numbers are drawn from the results of GPR data for those that are to hedge against any misinterpretation. Skingski (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Connected to this, I note a problem with the article. Its title is "Canadian Indian residential school gravesites". However, the page excludes marked gravesites, making it not a canonical list and leaving the false impression all school graves are unmarked. Would marked graves constitute "confirmed" graves? Certainly, marked gravesites add to the list of locations. Skingski (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Separately, the Walton reference [6] indicates 73 children are recorded to have died at Dunbow in High River. If true, then this is not an estimate but fact (I haven't checked TRC; I don't see the number is from GPR). Also, they could not be in the "estimated" or "confirmed" gravesite column since the burial sites are unknown (maybe even not at the school?) - it seems important to include, but ideas on how? Finally, wouldn't the 34 found be among the 73, meaning 34 confirmed and 39 missing? Skingski (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:UNDUE weight on the one source you seem to be tenaciously insisting that we utilize.

The WP:COMMONNAME is what we are using. If you would like, we could move it to Canadian Indian residential school unmarked graves, which is the only other name that carries any weight, but regardless of where it moves, it would required a move discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

One source for what? Or is that a reference to someone else's comment on something?

We could start a new Talk section on it. One page for all is good, or maybe it would be too long and a separate page on the unmarked ones would be better. Skingski (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skingski: The confusion you cite regarding what is estimated or confirmed at Dunbow is a result of Magnolia editing the table to split the numbers, which I have objected to in my reply above. Indeed, 73 is not the number of estimated sites at Dunbow, it is the number of known dead, and 34 is the number of distinct people's remains that were uncovered in a natural disaster. Meanwhile, 200 is the number of unmarked graves estimated to be at Kamloops, the announcement of which kicked this whole thing off, need I remind you. The point, as per the sources cited in this article, is not that no human remains (save those at Dunbow) have been removed from the earth, but rather that a legacy of concealed harm has received probably scientific corroboration in the form of GPR surveys. The article gains nothing by having a column of "confirmed gravesites". It just invites confusion, and is not even sourced. James Hyett (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely confused. For sure, we should not mix confirmed and unconfirmed as that colors people's opinions as I noted (why do you say the 73 is unsourced?). As to the table, another solution is to focus the table on the possible/probable unmarked previously unrecognized/lost gravesites and dispense with the 73 and the known cemeteries (some of which may have unmarked but recorded graves within). I think this is what you would desire. Then change the title/description to reflect this discrimination.

By "legacy of concealed harm", do you mean the fact that the GPR data and claims by certain Indigenous people suggest vastly higher numbers than the TRC, or do you mean something else? Skingski (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, the 73 is obviously not unsourced, however the 0s that surround it are. Your solution to focus the table on the unmarked graves that have been making news recently is exactly what I'm suggesting. There could even be a column to specify how the estimated numbers have been reached-- GPR, accidental exhumation, research/GPR (as in Fort Providence). The only way I could see keeping the number 73 would be in a "Notes" column, which would that 73 people are known from records to have been buried at Dunbow.

@James Hyett: I LOVE that change with the evidence column! Looks great! But we still have the problem of the page title. I'll start a new Talk section on it. Skingski (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Evidence is being found of people buried as a result of mistreatment at residential schools, the legacy of which has not (in the opinion of many Indigenous people) been sufficiently reckoned with, that's what I'm referring to. I meant to point that out as a way of indicating that we don't need to include the marked graves and the deaths for each school reported by the TRC, because that's not the point of this article. James Hyett (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TRC outlines the mistreatment at the IRS (which should be in the main IRS article), but does not connect abuse with potential gravesites. And GPR cannot prove or suggest whether someone was abused or not, just indicate someone may be buried in a spot. Exhumation would help. Skingski (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just done a big overhaul of the table to specify the manner in which each site's unmarked graves have been identified.James Hyett (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, looks outstanding! Skingski (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You've just reverted my edit, telling me to seek consensus, when you had earlier split the table without seeking consensus. Would you care to weigh in on what is wrong with my compromise proposed above? James Hyett (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@James Hyett: Twenty-six years ago, 34 graves were found at Dunbow Industrial School. Since then, no graves have been found, though many places where graves are suspected to be have been identified. These could very well be unmarked graves, or half of them could be, or none. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is specifically NOT "a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." I have no dog in this fight. My only concern is that it is misleading to Wikipedia's readers to use language that is factually incorrect, and which is not supported by the sources cited. I am also disappointed that the flood of reliable sources that have recently been highlighting that no bodies have been found, have all somehow been discredited as "unreliable". Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for laying that out; I also think it is important to be precise in the language we use to talk about this issue, since there has been a lot of discussion in the media about "thousands of children's bodies" being found, when that is not entirely accurate. I appreciate your most recent edit to the table's heading and title, though I'm not sure the invocation of WP:RUMOUR is called for, since archaeological findings and archival research are hardly "unverifiable speculation". The issue of the sources you want to include has been addressed elsewhere. James Hyett (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor point - we don't have archaeological findings yet just preliminary studies as they say in science - probably why Beaulieu has not published her work in a peer-reviewed journal yet (pls correct me if I'm wrong). I have to brush up on the archival research end. Skingski (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Segregate school cemeteries and unmarked graves into different pages?

The page has a problem. Its title is "Canadian Indian residential school gravesites". However as discussed in the | Misleading table and the | School # Talk sections, the article excludes all marked gravesites, leading to the false impression all IRS graves were unmarked/lost. A proposal has been made to make 2 separate pages to address this issue.

The current page would catalog all cemeteries - known and briefly summarizing unknown referring the reader to a new page exclusively for the unknowns.

It's proposed the new page be titled "Canadian Indian residential school unmarked graves". On reflection, perhaps a better title would be something like "Canadian Indian residential school unmarked graves controversy" or "Canadian Indian residential school graves controversy" to cover the Sacred Heart case. The main point of such s page is not to catalog unmarked graves within known cemeteries, but address GPR and such indicated sites in the news. Skingski (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox event

Template:Infobox event, used at the top of the article, is not the correct infobox to use. I'm not sure which one is, but this one is for one-off events, like a natural disaster (the example given at the infobox is an explosion). The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue I have had in the back of my mind for a while. The trouble is that this article is about potentially hundred-year-old gravesites being identified (or not) across a huge geographical area over an indefinite period of time (as searches go at their own paces). The more I think of it, the less I'm certain an infobox is helpful or necessary. James Hyett (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's honestly just a few pictures, a link that is included in the first sentence, and a number that starts out the entire third paragraph of the lede. Seems rather pointless. The pictures, if anyone feels they are relevant, can help add some visual interest into the long portions of text in the "Background" and the "Investigations underway" sections. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I support your option to keep the pics but move them within the story. A history article should have historic photos. Skingski (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Echoing the above comments: I suggest the event Infobox be deleted. Multiple cemeteries and mass graves pages don't have Infoboxes (e.g., Cemeteries and crematoria in Brighton and Hove and Mass graves in Slovenia). Skingski (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Table part 2

Why are we including a marked grave in the summary table of "suspected unmarked graves"? The table seems to be evolving to mean "suspected or recovered lost gravesites." That would cover the found graves in Batteford and Dunbow as well as any future discoveries. Skingski (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the title of the table is insufficient - the topic of this article isn't just suspected unmarked graves, or unmarked graves at all, but the bringing to light of the legacy of death at residential schools. To address an earlier point you brought up, marked gravesites erected by schools are outside the scope of this article - the point is that for many years the remains of people have gone unaccounted for.

Frankly, I believe it's for this reason that the table was initially titled "estimated or confirmed gravesites" - different situations at different sites mean some have only been estimated (as at Kamloops) while some have been definitively proven to be gravesites (as at Battleford, and in another way as near Delmas). I would suggest returning to a similar title, perhaps "Summary of suspected and identified gravesites at residential schools", with disambiguation between suspected and identified gravesites being provided by the notes section and the use of '—' for locations where none are suspected due to them being identified.James Hyett (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not a fan of the original title as it mixes things too much and I would then go back to saying all school cemeteries should be included especially as that is the title of this wikiarticle. The Manner of Identification column you provided helps a lot. Are we making a separate page for the lost and found gravesites to separate from the well-kept cemeteries/gravesites? Skingski (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so - that's what this page is for (the "lost and found" gravesites - even the gravesite found near Delmas, while marked, was lost). James Hyett (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Then why isn't it named that? As I noted b4, the current title of the page with the content as is makes it sound like all gravesites at IRS are unmarked/lost/recovered. If no separate page, then we could make separate sections with an introductory paragraph stating students who died at the school were buried in nearby cemeteries. Some were maintained (put this info in one section in abbreviated form - maybe a table) while others deteriorated and were lost (a second section). Skingski (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As Walter Görlitz pointed out above, WP:COMMONNAME is one major reason why the article is named as it is. Further, as per the second move discussion linked at the top of this talk page, which removed the word "discoveries" from the end of the current article title,

"What makes these gravesites notable isn't the fact that they're being located, it's that they exist at all. "Discoveries" also perpetuates the POV settler narrative that nobody knew they were there until now, despite it being well known for more than a century now that Indigenous children were dying at these schools at rates far exceeding childhood mortality rates in the general population" (Ivanvector)

Prompted by this discussion, I've tried to see if I can find a comprehensive list of the schools that have cemeteries that have been well-documented. I found Dr. Scott Hamilton's report on the NCTR website [7], which highlights how the issue is not so cut and dry: that while some schools' records indicate that they had cemeteries, some cemeteries associated with schools went unreported, some students were buried in the cemeteries associated with the church that ran the school (ie the cemeteries are not on school grounds), and the standards of caring for these sites varies greatly from place to place and across time. I also found a copy of Alex Maass' 2018 dissertation on the topic, cited heavily in Hamilton's report. I need to read a bit more of it to understand fully, but she compiles in her appendix a table of 54 cemeteries and burial sites identified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Among those listed are Fort Providence, Kamloops, and Kuper Island - because people have known that there are burial sites there for a long time. That being said, the appendix does not list cemeteries associated with the Battleford, Dunbow, or Delmas schools, for instance. So there may be value in including all of those sites listed in Haass' dissertation - I would just like to locate the "cemetery reports" generated by the TRC to get more information on them before expanding our Summary table by 400%.

I think there is a fair amount of analysis in Hamilton's report that should be incorporated into this article, about how the exact situation of how cemeteries have been maintained varies wildly from place to place.James Hyett (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Görlitz also suggested moving it to a separate WP:COMMONNAME page, "Canadian Indian residential school unmarked graves." The present common name is the same one you'd use to search for info on any IRS cemetery, not just the ones we focus on here. Of course such a page would be about currently and historically unmarked graves as some are now marked and these graves would appear on the original page too, but absent the detail, press, etc.

I disagree with Ivanvector. Cemeteries tend to be notable on their own. My search of Wikipedia shows literally thousands of pages dedicated to different cemeteries.

Really excellent info you found. I need to check that out. I did read about degradation of markers, etc. over time not just for cemeteries at IRS but generally in Canada. This new info should vastly improve the article. I'm guessing Hamilton's report was not long after November 18, 2014 given the p. 2 footnote. It reads so far like an interim report to a government granting agency. Nice to see TRC info condensed in one place. TRC is a good read, but long.

I'm not a fan of citing dissertations as they are not peer-reviewed and thus may represent flawed or incomplete studies (Beaulieu, please finish/publish your research!). I found Maass' | dissertation in case you didn't see it - it's May 2018. So Hamilton may have an updated report somewhere. Skingski (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw the revised lede you wrote - fantastic start to resolving my concern on the page title. Skingski (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Also see the NCTR links directly to Hamilton's report off their page "Highlighted Reports", which adds credibility for the report but suggests Hamilton has not provided an update as NCTR reports end 2016. Skingski (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Whistleblowers"

Would anyone object if this section was removed? It seems solely dedicated to talking up (and then talking down) conspiracy theorist Kevin Annett. Annett's record seems to indicate that he does not deserve space (or the legitimization provided by a mention) in this article - people were talking about deaths at residental schools over three-quarters of a century before him, so bringing him up seems rather like devoting space on an article about MKULTRA to conspiracy theorists that mentioned it. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! We were going to do something about this and didn't get to it. See the discussion archived here: [8] The outcome seemed to be that Annett should be included as part of the background or in a hoax section (maybe it is even better off in the main IRS article) because he was responsible for some of the original media hype, thereby making him a notable part of the story. Skingski (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Should the Investigations of... section go in alphabetical order?

It started as only a few, but it is now starting to get pretty unwieldly... I think it's time to establish order to the chaos, and at this point I suggest alphabetical replace chronological. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that an alphabetical listing is probably appropriate, but we ought also to establish how the sections will be titled. Currently they are mostly reduced forms of the school names, but I think fully naming the schools in the section headings would be less ambiguous. James Hyett (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While we're at it, perhaps there should be a consensus on which name to use: The Christian, Indigenous, or the sometimes-uncertain whatever-the-most-sources-use mish-mash. Most in the article currently use the church name, but then you've got ex. Kootenay vs. St. Eugene's Mission. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Number is not correct

This number of graves found is now out of date. It is much too low. 2607:FEA8:459F:C2E0:68D2:A185:45BB:BA49 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the numbers on social media are much too high (they add the estimate from the Truth and reconciliation report, as well as several American res schools). Please provide any evidence of missing numbers though and we can add it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Marieval

This has already been debunked by the chief mentioned in the section as being a cemy mostly for white locals.

Update please and put an asterisk on the table. 174.89.172.103 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for that claim/statement? Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

National Post article

The National Post published a lengthy article this week, "The year of the graves: How the world’s media got it wrong on residential school graves". This may be a valuable resource for improving this article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article we are currently concerned with improving already makes abundantly clear the nature of the searches and announcements from the various First Nations governments around the residential school gravesites under consideration. While some sources and people on social media may have erroneously or hastily claimed that children's bodies were discovered at Kamloops, Marieval, etc, but this article makes abundantly clear the status of each site. What part of this article do you suggest could be improved by this National Post piece, which seems to concern itself mostly with how "the world's media got it wrong"? - James Hyett (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

For a start, the chart, "Summary of suspected unmarked graves at residential schools" has a column "Suspected unmarked graves". It could be changed to "Suspected unmarked graves / number of graves found". The column could then be populated like this: "298/0; 38/0; 751/0; 182/0"...and so forth. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That might make sense once exhumations begin, but otherwise it seems rather pointless to add. Also, it should be confirmed/estimated when that does happen, so as to be a fraction. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Fort Alexander / Sagkeeng FN

The finding of 190 "anomalies" at the former Fort Alexander IRS is in the news today. I'm not sure on whether to split it from the Pending list into it's own section at this time given that they are specifically using the term "anomalies" to describe them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the very careful language used in that article is reflective of the recent backlash to a lot of the media reporting last summer (cf the Terry Glavin National Post piece). I think it's worth it to spin this announcement off into its own section, since the "anomalies" are findings that have been found, but this particular news item's placement in the summary table might be more tricky. Though if you'd prefer to hold off until we have properly reorganized the Investigations section, that makes sense too. -James Hyett (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

14 possible gravesites at Pine Creek

CBC reported on August 8 that 14 possible gravesites were located at Pine Creek, MB, one top of six other "anomalies" discovered in June. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

It was brought to my attention that there are a couple statements and references found only in the lede of the article, specifically refs [3],[4] and [6], and the statements associated with the latter two. Not sure if someone wants to take a stab at fixing this up, I'm sure the corresponding info is found at Canadian Indian residential school system. I'm at work for the next 8 hours but I can make an attempt after that. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Done! See my edit summary for details. James Hyett (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this whole page can be rolled into the mair article, since it is the only physical evidence of anything in that article.

why not? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Estimated BY WHO. When wiki.just says "estimated" without context, it means estimated BY by the open scientific community of human beings. Not just "one person I heard about once" 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking care to distinguish between cemeteries and gravesites. it might be worth a bigger explanation? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Why children died not discussed

Not mentioning this in an article of this length is misleading. Did I miss this? I had to look elsewhere to find it mentioned. 2600:1005:B143:74DE:1149:B1A8:E8F7:A8CC (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned, though not extensively. "A significant number of Indigenous children died while attending residential schools, mostly from disease or fire, with some schools experiencing rates as high as 1 death per 20 students." What do you feel is missing? James Hyett (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Mostly?

We can do better can't we? 60%? 90%

People are being judged here. Being raised to love or hate, according to the barbarity of white people described in this article. Indigenous peoples never did anything like this to each other, there was no slavery or anything.

We need to make it clear. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FB6A:3C6E:A64C:284A (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You said you had to look elsewhere to find mention of why students died. Please share the source where you looked, and we can see whether it is a reliable enough source to include in this article. James Hyett (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The map on this article is at best grossly misleading

The map on this article is a sea of red points, which are supposedly confirmed sites. I haven't checked every red pin but even a cursory glance will show that most are not confirmed at all. For example, the Sacred Heart, Kamloop, and St Mary's the first three I clicked on, are all merely suspected due to radar results and are not confirmed to have human remains. The Pine Falls example is particularly egregious as we have a sourced statement on our article stating the disturbances detected by radar were not gravesites, yet the map lists Pine Falls as a confirmed gravesite. By searching in the source code for the red colour code, the map claims 23 sites are confirmed, yet our table only lists 7 sites as having been confirmed to be gravesites. It's riddled with factual inaccuracies and would be incredibly deceptive for any reader to encounter. As such, I have commented out the map until it can corrected. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the map. There is a range of special cases, that can't possibly be shown properly on a map using color coding. --Rob (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kamloops and Pine Creek

"During four weeks over the summer of 2023, the Pine Creek First Nation team sent to the site performed an excavation of some of the anomalies, but found no human remains.[178]"

Kamloops has not been excavated yet. The article referenced in the section under "Investigations that found no gravesites" pertains to the Pine Creek excavation, not Kamloops. Therefore the GPR data needs to be restored to the table and the paragraph on Kamloops returned to its original location.

Pine Creek as well only dismissed some of the "anomalies", reflecting the tenuous nature of relying on GPR solely. They have 59 more which they claim they will get excavated.Skingski (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of table

In the "Summary of suspected and confirmed gravesites" tables, we should split the "Manner of identification" into two columns. One should be simple yes/no flag for whether Ground Penetrating Radar was used. The second column for what else was used. Since most of the more recent cases are GPR, it would reduce redundancy, and make it easier for people to find exceptions, without reading every word. In seven cases, the only thing we say is "GPR". Also, I don't understand the inconsistency of how we're using the term "oral histories". Every single case has oral histories. We're giving the false idea that nobody knew about bodies until GPR was used. In every community announcement made after GPR finds something, it is always mentioned that the community already had oral history. Without pre-existing knowledge of bodies, and rough ideas of where they might be, nobody would use GPR. Yet, we arbitrarily mention oral histories sometimes, and not others, regardless of what the source says. I'm not sure the correct approach, but we could just add the text "(all cases include oral histories)" under the column heading "Manner of identification". --Rob (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Added: I don't understand the removal of Pine Creek. It should obviously be updated to state the excavation done found nothing was found where 12 anaomlies were identified by GPR. --Rob (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by this table, too. Does a dash in the "Confirmed human remains" column mean that no remains were found after a search? Or that no search was performed? Or ... something else? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The table initially included only one column for "estimated or confirmed gravesites". As part of this discussion, the column was split into its present form, and the more detailed "manner of identification" column was also added. I believe that in the interest of not giving WP:UNDUE weight to the "not a single body has been found" crowd, dashes were used instead of 0s to indicate that no excavation has occurred. If I'm reading that archived discussion right, my feeling was that a 0 would indicate "there are no human remains at this site", which we couldn't assert for a suspected gravesite without excavation. It is by no means a perfect table, and we should most definitely improve it. Maybe we need two tables.

Rob makes a good point about oral histories, though it's worth noting that some cases haven't used oral history as a manner of identification-- for instance the flood at Dunbow and the 1992 discovery at Muscowequan. James Hyett (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You're correct, given that we're using "identification" to refer to how the number listed was produced. There was likely oral histories for institutions, but in a couple cases, they were completely unrelated to how the bodies were discovered. On the topic of numbers, I think the grand totals are probably a bad idea. We shouldn't add up numbers from different sources, to give totals that aren't from any single source. Also, the note "(excluding Saddle Creek)" isn't sufficient. We're still giving the false impression that there's "only" 151 confirmed bodies. If we must have the table it makes sense to separate "suspected" and "confirmed". But, there isn't actually agreement on what those terms mean, and how to categorize different findings. Ideally we'd be citing a scholarly source that made a table like this, which was approved in the peer review process. That hasn't happened, so this all looks very WP:SYNTH. --01:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

In my most recent edit, I have removed the summary row as per your good suggestion. I have also changed the heading of the column that was formerly "confirmed human remains" to "confirmed unmarked graves", to allow for cases such as the Regina Indian Industrial School where graves have been confidently identified but not dug up. However, I think there is more to be done about the table. James Hyett (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So when I was updating Pine Creek I checked the table for Shubenacadie, and it wasn't in there. I assumed that the table was intended for sites that are either still suspected of being or have been confirmed to be a gravesite, and since Pine Creek is not a gravesite, it should not be included in the table. That's why I updated the section header. Even if that's not how the table has been used in the past, I would still argue that's how it should be treated as investigations start concluding. If there's no graves it shouldn't be in the list of gravesites, simple as that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There is just as much/little evidence Pine Creek is a grave site as there is for most other sites. While The CBC reported no evidence of graves *specifically* beneath the church, they said there were other anomalies in the area, that weren't yet dug up. In fact the chief said "The results of our excavation under the church should not be deemed as conclusive of other ongoing searches and efforts to identify reflections from other community processes including other (ground-penetrating radar) initiatives,". Note, the cbc wrote differently about Shubenacadie, implying they investigated all known ledes, figured out what things were (pre-school graves), and there was nothing more to look for, unless someone came foreword with more information, unlike Pine Creek, where there are specific anomalies that haven't been dug up. --Rob (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion in chart

What is the inclusion criteria for the "suspected unmarked graves " column in the chart? The article states that some cemeteries "were officially associated with schools historically but were overgrown and abandoned after the school closed". If a school had a cemetery--and like commentaries everywhere--it became overgrown or destroyed with time or natural events, do the previously-marked graves meet the criteria for inclusion in the "suspected unmarked graves " column? --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the case you've described probably does count. The point is that these graves that have been "lost to time" are being re-discovered. To my understanding, the inclusion criteria is (at least in cases for the past few years) whether the First Nation (or other organization) conducting the search states that they suspect there to be unmarked graves at a given site. James Hyett (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@James Hyett: Thanks for that. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Ok...so if a known cemetery is neglected and its grave markers are destroyed by natural events, then some organization says, "hey, these are unmarked graves"...then it should be included? Half the cemeteries in Ireland would meet this criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources have addressed the topic of neglected graves without markers (or where markers were removed many years ago) as "unmarked graves". While one could argue it's misleading, it's the manner in which reporting has approached the topic and Wikipedia follows reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You're correct, most reliable sources (except maybe National Post) tend to call them "unmarked graves". But, I think we could just say "graves" in the table, so the headings would be "Suspected graves" and "Confirmed graves". It would be more concise, and we can still use the term "unmarked graves" in the prose of the article. Under "Confirmed unmarked graves" we list "1" at "Thunderchild Residential School". Except, in this case, all that was found was a gravestone, so we're calling a grave marking an unmarked grave. The APTN article uses "grave", not "unmarked grave" when referring to the 44 suspected graves (which makes sense, because the bodies were likely moved and re-buried, implying they must have all been marked). --Rob (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

To be determined

So, for some reason we have a separate section called "To be determined" where we list all the school where there is some ongoing investigation. Much of this duplicates what's in the table. Trying to keep up on the latest of what's being looked at, is a bad idea, doomed to fail, by being out-of-date. I wish to remove it, but am not sure what people think should be kept and fit elsewhere. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this article just lacks purpose. As raised above, what gets included in these lists is extremely broad and not necessarily what people would expect. It needs to be restructured. We need to clearly differentiate between gravesites suspected to be deliberately concealed (which is what was talked up in the media) and gravesites that are missing headstones and other markers (which are included in the numbers but are an entirely different sort of issue). We also need to clearly differentiate between sites that have been confirmed to actually contain graves, those that are suspected but not confirmed, and those that have been investigated and confirmed not to have any human remains there. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition and scope of article

I reverted [redacted erroneous link]: "The Canadian Indian residential school gravesites are burial areas of approximately 3,200 to 6,000 students that died while attending the Canadian Indian residential school system". This is confusing wording. This article should be about graves (proven and possible) of children at residential schools, that have been found (or re-found) at, or near, the residential schools. Many/most of the "3,200 to 6,000" who died as a result of attendance schools were not buried anywhere near the schools. They were often buried by the families in their local community. Their death may have been caused by the school, but they might die at a hospital, and then the body is turned to the family. This article is about bodies buried at (or near) the actual school they attended. There's a special interest in graves that were unmarked, or who's markings were lost and re-discovered. Other article(s) should cover the larger problem of all deaths at residential school. While we have to discuss the broader issue, the lede wording shouldn't imply anyone thinks there's 6,000 graves at residential schools. In short: deaths at school<>graves at school. --Rob (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead section that was re-instituted, especially that first sentence, do not fulfill the MOS:LEAD parameters of MOS:OPEN and MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The subject of the article wasn't even mentioned directly in the first sentence - actually, the subject of the gravesites wasn't mentioned by name at all in the lead section. I've adjusted the first sentence, bolding the subject article but leaving out the estimated numbers of students who died. Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You wording is an improvement over the two immediately prior versions. --Rob (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"Church arsons" connection tenuous at best

The evidence presented to link the church arson section of the article to the titular topic seems to be tenuous at best. The BCCLA has not, to my knowledge, been convicted of any of these arsons - so what is the value of what amounts to peanut gallery commentary? This does not provide any real connection to the topic of the article. The same goes for the BC Union of Chiefs: it hasn't been shown that indigenous people are even behind the arsons. Therefore, it seems this section of the article constitutes original research at best (or innuendo at worst!) and ought to be removed entirely. At minimum I think the connection, if any, should be explicated. But since I don't think conclusive evidence of this connection exists, I believe it should simply be removed. Thoughts? - 206.45.2.52 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As explained in the main article, "Canadian government officials, church members, and Canadian Indigenous leaders have speculated that the fires and other acts of vandalism have been reactions to the May 2021 reports of alleged discovery of over 1,000 unmarked graves at Canadian Indian residential school sites." As you suggest, this connection should really be drawn explicitly in this article. I think a small section is appropriate, since such speculation did fly, but the inclusion of quotes without context does paint an inappropriate picture. James Hyett (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, making definitive claims of causation are inappropriate when the quotes indicate speculation. I made a change to the introduction to say the events were “followed by” church fires instead of “leading to”, but I question whether a tenuous link should even be put in the introduction. I understand the rationale of a small section later on, but mentioning the fires in the introduction presupposes a stronger connection than reliable sources have given evidence for. Especially since as the intro stands, it’s sandwiched between mentions of general response to the reports, and the Pope’s 2022 visit to Canada, I think that placement in the introduction skews perception by connecting it to events very clearly and directly caused by the news of the graves. Elfangor9 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Major issue with lede

Quoting the lede: "Most of the deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis infections, but the exact number remains unknown due to incomplete records.", with [1], [2], & [3] cited in support of this claim. However, my position is that this sentence is actually (inaccurate) synthesis of the 3 sources, because none of those sources in their current forms support the central claim that "most of the deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis". Moreover, every source used in support of this claim unequivocally states that these rates of death where much higher than the general population in Canada at the time, due largely to malnourishment observed in residential school students, physical and mental abuse, general lack of cleanliness, etc. In other words, the central finding of the TRC and the position of the indigenous community writ large was that these deaths were the result of government malfeasance. I think this borders on original research, and the lede should be restated to more accurately reflect the content of [1], [2], & [3] with respect to the topic at hand. Hand-waving the outsize rates of death at these institutions really does smack of colonialism and seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Thoughts? 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What does "smack of colonialism" mean? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Per Oxford, quote "to seem to contain or involve a particular unpleasant quality", in this case, the quality of colonialism. Let's try to stay on topic! There are major issues with the lede, and that claim is totally unsupported by the sources cited. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stay on topic"? Maybe try toning down the rhetoric then.

I agree that the cited sources do not support the claim that "Most of the deaths have been attributed to tuberculosis infections". The first and second refs do not mention tuberculosis, saying simply "Most of the children died from malnourishment or disease" and "The lack of a proper dietary standard meant students were undernourished, which increased their vulnerability to infectious diseases, and then the rates of infectious disease grew — again due to lack of regulation barring ill students from being admitted to the schools, as well as overcrowding." The third ref says "approximately 3,200 residential school students died of malnourishment, tuberculosis and other diseases caused by poor living conditions". Nothing here supports the claim that most of the deaths were tuberculosis related. Meters (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Tuberculosis was the largest killer of all Canadians until about 1960, and consumption killed about 60% of the children at residential schools. Moreover, many arrived already infected, as the ratio of those dying back home on the reserves was even higher that in the residential schools. I still have no idea how this "smacks of colonialism". Maybe it just smacks of an article needing some fine-tuning of facts, citing reliable sources, so as to improve it for our readers (so it smacks of high-quality). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No idea either why the IP thinks this smacks of colonialism, and I find it rich that the IP would chastise you for not staying on topic when they were the one using the language in question.

As for the statistics about tuberculosis, they may well be true (I don't know the statistics myself) but the sources we cite do not support the statement about tuberculosis currently in the lead. Two of them do not even contain the word "tuberculosis". The IP is correct. We need proper sourcing for this claim, or we need to remove it. Meters (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There have been concerted revisionist efforts within Canadian historical scholarship, and there is a general thread of apologia in Canadian societ which seeks to downplay the nature of the Canadian government's treatement of indigenous people. Hence "smacks of colonialism" in the sense that it is trying to misdirect or minimize what by all accounts was the result of government malfeasance. Saying most children in residential schools died of tuberculosis is like saying most Ukrainians in 1932 died of malnourishment. While technically true, these are wholly unhelpful statements in an encyclopedic setting and absent appropriate context are totally misleading in my opinion. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not according to sources [1], [2], or [3]. Please remain civil.

Moreover, the lede curiously fails to mention that the rates of tuberculosis in this cohort were 200 and sometimes 300% greater than the national average per the sources in question. There are a lot of other POV issues with this article as it stands which I will be addressing in kind. Regards. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors are quickly going to run out of patience if you continue to use combative language to respond to what are clearly good faith and reasonable responses. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Which combative language are you talking about? Not sure which "good faith and reasonable responses" you are talking about as the majority of responses are now offtopic. Regards.2605:B100:110A:5E60:259A:D16F:54CF:4B24 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with the OP that the lede doesn't follow the sources, and needs to be fixed. I don't think there's much debate about the immediate cause of death of children (such as TB). Rather, it's what led to those immediate causes (e.g. forcing kids to go to schools known to have an outbreak, and poor conditions that made outbreaks worse) that is the issue. We need to mention findings of culpability by churches and government, to give context. We don't want to get into great detail, as this article is specifically about graves, but we still need a clear mention. --Rob (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

:Why haven't any of these issues been addressed yet? 2605:B100:110B:642C:FCD7:D108:C90A:1526 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The improperly supported claims about tuberculosis deaths were removed long ago. And if you are the same user as was previously blocked, you are evading your block and are not allowed to edit using any IP or account. Meters (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Please see my response in the proper section. Again I would like to caution you against violating WP:PA. If you have a procedural issue, you need to take that up with the relevant authorities on Wikipedia rather than engaging in flame-baiting and ad hominem attacks. Regards. 2605:B100:110B:642C:FCD7:D108:C90A:1526 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

The last line of the subsection regarding the Brandon Manitoba Indian Residential School says "Excavations of the anomalies have found no human remains".

It should be changed to say "Excavations of the anomalies in the church basement have found no human remains, however investigations into the anomalies on the rest of the schoolgrounds have yet to be confirmed." Benderisaac (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say that in the current source. Do you have another source that would support it? _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I added [9] which does elaborate. But, we've already given the required info, that there were many anomalies over a large area, and that the excavation was part of an investigation into just 14 of those anomalies. The reader should be able to understand that 14 is less than 71, and that anything could be found somewhere/somewhen in the future. --Rob (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Map

I re-removed the map, as this is obvious original research, putting together various pieces of data, from different, unspecified sources, to form an overall picture. It's very much contested what sites have been "confirmed". In prose, you can say exactly who's saying something is "confirmed", but a map presents a bunch of "confirmed" sites, without any attribution. Most "confirmed" sites have never been dug up. Some media reports present them as "found", but not necessarily as "confirmed". There's also the absurd contradiction that we have a table that lists only 7 "confirmed" sites, yet the map shows way more. Also, the data is out-of-date, as we can't keep track of exactly how many on-going investigations there are. --Rob (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"putting together various pieces of data, from different, unspecified sources, to form an overall picture."

Sounds like you're describing a map. The source is the article itself. Data can be updated, that's the point of Wikipedia (although lately it has no point except as a bastion of nit picking minute details) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the data in the map does not reflect the data in the table, and it would be grossly misleading to display it. The fact that the map makes completely incorrect and obviously false claims about dozens of sites is not "nit picking minute details", it's a pretty critical flaw if you ask me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just lazy editing, "it's outdated. Waaah." Update it then! Eagerly awaiting when photos are declared original research, so you can further back yourself into a corner. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not outdated, it's falsified. Since you're the one who wants it on the article, why don't you bring it up to scratch? Or are you too lazy for that? "Waaahhh no one will do my work for me" 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Omission of lack of evidence

Why does this article say almost nothing about the lack of confirmation of these alleged radar detected graves? Even on the listed table it's been five years since the last time any unmarked graves were confirmed. (The singe grave found in late 2021 was not unmarked.) Isn't this a glaring omission? Tdsandquist (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with your claim, but if you want to say something in the article, you need to cite reliable sources that supports whatever you want to say in the article. --Rob (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope. The claim is that numerous bodies are buried. The burden of proof is on the claimant for proving that claim, not for people labeled "deniers" to dig up all of Canada and report their results. Radar evidence is obviously not accurate, and people are too afraid to address the obvious lies. 74.70.249.32 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Then wiki article itself shows there was nothing found

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6879980

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/no-evidence-of-mass-graves-or-genocide-in-residential-schools#:~:text=No%20unmarked%20graves%20have%20been,beneath%20the%20surface%20remains%20unknown.

https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/the-kamloops-discovery-a-fact-check-two-years-later

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-nations-graves/wcm/5f68bb68-ecb4-4c3a-8a87-88c77876988a/amp/

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6941441

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-how-the-worlds-media-got-it-wrong-on-residential-school-graves/wcm/e9515fe6-5771-46a3-972e-a70929b686e1/amp/

the burden of proof is on the claim 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:D426:EBD1:AC63:C805 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

There is a specific line of misinformation regarding the search at the Brandon IRS which can fuel denialism. The final sentence regarding excavations is in regards to a different school (Pine Creek), and so is mis-attributed. There have been no excavations documented at BIRS. Please remove this last sentence.

Additionally, in the text above, graves are indicated as "located". However, "suspected" in both the sources and the table above. Chris.Mancuso (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done – The misattributed line has been removed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

undue regurgitation of old fake news

a series of suspicious fires were set at Catholic and Anglican churches

nope nope nope. Suspicions were voiced by click-bait websites, sure. Never ever substantiated. Poof. Substantiate this if you want it in the article, and it will probably still be undue for the lede. Elinruby (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed from article body: {{main|2021 Canadian church burnings}}

By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches, including eight on First Nations territories, had been burned. Indigenous leaders, the prime minister, and provincial officials have condemned the suspected arsons.

Harsha Walia, the executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, tweeted "burn it all down", and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs expressed "strong solidarity with (Harsha Walia) in condemning the brutally gruesome genocide of residential ‘school’ system by Canada and Church while crown stole FN land". Walia later advised Canadian media outlets through legal representation that she does not support arson and was speaking figuratively.

It would probably be worthwhile to link 2021 Canadian church fires as a see-also, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These fires were broadly identified as arsons and directly tied to the residential school gravesites, see the CBC. Worth far, far more than a "see also". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it was widely speculated that that was the case. If we do republish this we should omit the detail of Walia's tweet, it's already covered in the main article and it's out of balance here to only report a negative (as in supporting the fires) reaction; moreso because it was later retracted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers retracted statements all the time, particularly if they are widely reported in reliable sourcing and appear to have a substantial impact. Given that a formal investigation by a leading news agency revealed a direct tie, I would say widely speculated is failing to give reliable sources due balance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that source, I was going by how the other article described it, but you're right. I'm not concerned about Walia's reaction being retracted, only that it's calling out an incident with a living person with possibly insufficient context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, how about we remove Walia's reaction? We can maybe discuss restoring it down the road, but there's a lot of work to be done to make this article "work" again after so much of it was muddled by POV editing. It's a distraction and the BLP concerns are valid enough for me to feel just a bit uneasy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh–you already did that. Good work! Keep up the cleaning. My only two-cents was that the church burnings were a legit part of the whole thing and, for what it's worth, I think some reliable sources about genuine grave discoveries were removed by the POV editing earlier this month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: There's been an ongoing discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Abusing relevance tags after falsely accusing someone of disseminating false news and refusing to engage in a talk page discussion is not conducive to improving the article. Given that the editor you're trying to engage with has already pinged you in a discussion you started, I feel like this is approaching uncivil. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Opinion columns undue

The National Post opinion pages do not constitute a reliable source.See WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Under what basis is this being defended for inclusion? Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the media reporting section, it is properly attributed. Riposte97 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it's undue to put an opinion thing from National Post there, not that it isn't attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well then I disagree. It is being used as a primary source of fact for the existence of the opinion it espouses. Riposte97 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think the NP article is opinion? It isn't marked as such and provides much more analysis than perspective. 15:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)